Questioned Document Evidence in an Indian Court

In one line

Indian courts receive handwriting evidence and then look for something else to support it.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the opinion of a handwriting expert is a relevant fact under section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which names the identity of handwriting expressly; it may be supported or contradicted under section 40 and its grounds are relevant under section 45; the same fact may also be proved by a person acquainted with the handwriting under section 41 or by the court's own comparison under section 72; there is no rule of law requiring corroboration of an expert, since an expert is no accomplice, but the courts have repeatedly said that it is unsafe to base a conviction on such opinion without substantial corroboration, and in practice corroboration is insisted upon.

The two cases that pull apart

Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab.

Facts. A consignment of iron sheets despatched to Bikaner was carried to Ludhiana after the wagon labels and the vehicle summary were tampered with. A forged railway receipt, written on a blank form stolen from a railway station, was used to obtain delivery of the goods. The case against the appellant rested substantially on the opinion of a handwriting expert that the writing on the forged receipt was his.

Held. It is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration, and the rule has been universally acted upon. Expert opinion is evidence of a very weak type, the science of identification of handwriting is not perfect, and the court must seek independent and reliable corroboration before acting on it.

Why it matters. It is the strongest judicial warning about handwriting evidence in Indian law, and it is what a defence advocate opens with.

Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Facts. A conviction for murder rested on two pieces of evidence: the recovery of the deceased's wrist watch at the appellant's instance, and a note in pencil in Hindi found beside the dead man which read that the writer had passed his B.A. and found no employment. A handwriting expert attributed the note to the appellant. It was argued that a conviction cannot rest on the uncorroborated opinion of a handwriting expert and that the High Court had erred in comparing the writings itself.

Held. The appeal was dismissed. An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning the opinion evidence of an expert to the same class as the evidence of an accomplice and insisting upon corroboration. The hazard in accepting the opinion of a handwriting expert is not because handwriting experts are unreliable as a class but because all human judgment is fallible, so the approach is one of caution and of examining the reasons for the opinion, not a rule of law requiring corroboration.