LAndmark judgmentS

i. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and Others (1999) 7 SCC 280

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 1997
Coram: K. T. Thomas, D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.
Author: D.P. Mohapatra, J.
Decided on: September 13, 1999


Full text available here

Facts
The accused were charged with corruption and criminal conspiracy for showing inflated quantities of diseased apples which the State Government under its economic policy would buy from the apple-growers. The Court examined the evidence presented by a District Horticulture Officer on his opinion on the fruit-bearing capacity of orchards which had been afflicted by the disease. According to the prosecution, the evidence of this expert showed that the quantity of scabbed apple brought by the accused was grossly inflated.

Findings
While examining the opinion of the District Horticulture Officer, the Court held that a person can qualify as a witness if they have undertaken a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience or skill. The Court also held that an expert is not a witness of fact and their evidence of advisory character. It is the duty of an expert to provide the judge with necessary scientific criteria to test the accuracy of their expert conclusion, and enable the judge to form an independent judgment. The credibility of the expert depends on the reasons stated in their reports and the material which forms the basis of their conclusions. As the Horticulture Officer had not conducted any research in assessing the productivity of apple trees in Himachal Pradesh, the Court held that he did not qualify as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

ii. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited and Others (2009) 9 SCC 709

Type: Civil Appeal No. 5991 oF 2002
Coram: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Author: H.L. Dattu, J.
Decided on: September 11, 2009


Full text available here

Facts
The appellant had filed a complaint with the National Consumer Commission against the respondents for medical negligence. The Commission concluded that there was no negligence by the Respondent. The contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court was that due an error by the Registry, the expert medical opinion placed before the Commission was deficient and was not based on the necessary medical documents.
Findings
The Court noted the importance of expert evidence in cases of specialised science such as medicine, which is outside the knowledge and experience of a lay person. The Court recognised the following principles for the admissibility of expert evidence - 1) it should be a recognised field of expertise, 2) evidence is based on reliable principles, and 3) the expert is qualified in that discipline. The Court also noted that the credibility of expert opinion lies in the data or basis of the conclusions underlying the report, without which the evidence may be inadmissible. Considering that the expert before the National Commission did not have access to all necessary documents, the Court held that he was unable to form a proper opinion. Therefore, principles of natural justice required that a fair opportunity should be given to the appellant to prove his claim based on the report of the expert.

iii. Dayal Singh and Others  v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 529 of 2010
Coram: Swatanter Kumar, F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
Author: Swatanter Kumar, J.
Decided on: August 3, 2012


Full text available here

Facts
The appellants were convicted of murder of man. Challenging their conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the eyewitness testimony cannot be believed in the face of the medical evidence as per which no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
Findings
The Court identified the purpose of expert testimony as providing the trier of fact with useful or relevant information. It noted that the report prepared by an expert is not binding on the Court and on analysing the report and viewing it along with other evidence, the Court can finally decide on whether the report can be relied upon or not.  The Court also cautioned against reports which are ex facie incorrect or distorted as in the case at hand. Dismissing the appeal, it held that in the absence of an authentic and correct post-mortem report, the truthfulness of the prosecution eyewitnesses could not be doubted.

iii. Machindra v. Sajjan Galfa Rankhamb and Others (2017) 13 SCC 491

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2013
Coram: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Author: Pinakai Chandra Ghose, J.
Decided on: April 19, 2017


Full text available here

Facts
The Respondents were convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Aggrieved, the Respondents appealed to the High Court where the trial court judgment was set aside and they were acquitted. The Supreme Court, in upholding the High Court decision, discussed the medical evidence presented in the case.
Findings
The Court noted that the doctor who conducted the post mortem did not mention the cause of injuries in his report nor his deposition. Reiterating the importance of the medical evidence on post mortem examination, the Court held that an expert’s opinion should be demonstrative and supported by convincing reasons. The Court cannot surrender its own judgment and if the expert’s report is inadequate, cryptic or information on similarities or dissimilarities is unavailable, then such an expert opinion has no value and is of no use to the Court.

i. Pritam Singh and Another v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1955
Coram: N.H. Bhagwati, T.L.Venkatarama Ayyar, Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, JJ.
Author: N.H. Bhagwati, J.
Decided on: November 4, 1955


Full text available here

Facts
This was an appeal against conviction for murder and sentence of death  by the Trial Court confirmed by the High Court. Foot-prints were found at the spot which corresponded to a pair of shoes which fit one of the appellants Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and which were recovered from his house along with some other articles.  The track evidence was also relied upon with regards to the second appellant Pritam Singh Lohara due to the fact that impressions made by him when he walked on the sandy patch in the Jail prepared for this purpose tallied with the moulds of the foot-prints prepared on the spot.

Findings
It was argued that the track evidence was unsatisfactory and should not have been relied upon by the courts below.The Court noted that the science of identification of footprints was  a rudimentary science and not much reliance could be placed on the result of such identification. However, it added that the track evidence can be relied upon as a circumstance which along with other circumstances could point to the identity of the culprit  even though by itself it would not be enough for a conviction. In the facts of the case at hand, the Court concluded that the  track evidence was a circumstance which was available to the prosecution against Pritam Singh Fatehpuri and Pritam Singh Lohara.

ii. Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 3 SCC 435

Citation: (1978) 3 SCC 435
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 1976
Coram: R.S. Sarkaria, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam, JJ.
Author: R.S. Sarkaria, J.
Decided on: April 26, 1978


Full text available here

Facts
This case pertains to a double murder. The appellant was sentenced to death by the Trial Court which was then confirmed by the High Court. Moulds were prepared from the foot-prints of the suspected culprit and matched with the footprints of the appellant. At trial, the expert testified that the foot-mould of one of the bare footprints found at the scene of crime tallied with the specimen left foot-mould of the appellant.

Findings
On the point of the footprint evidence, the Supreme Court held that the science of identification of foot-prints is not a developed science, and track evidence, by itself, is not sufficient for a conviction.  However, it is a relevant circumstance which  can be taken into account along with the other evidence and may then reinforce the conclusion on the identity of the culprit. In the matter at hand, the other evidence  was also  sufficient to fix the identity of the culprit. However, the footprint evidence provided further assurance to what the appellant stated in his confession statement about  his going barefooted inside and outside the Gurdwara about the time of committing the crimes in question.

iii. State of U.P. v. Sunil

Citation:(2017) 14 SCC 516
Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1432-34 of 2011
Coram:Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ.
Author: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
Decided on: May 2, 2017

Full text available here

Facts
In this case, the High Court set aside the order passed by the trial court and acquitted the respondents of murder. In considering the evidence, one of the questions before the Supreme Court was - “Whether compelling an accused to provide his fingerprints or footprints, etc. would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India i.e. compelling an accused of an offence to be a “witness” against himself? “

Findings
The Court held that a person can be directed to give his footprints for corroboration of evidence and the same cannot be considered as violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. The non-compliance with such direction of the court may lead to adverse inference. However, this cannot be entertained as the sole basis of conviction. After examining the entire evidence in this case, the Court said that prosecution failed to prove its case and upheld the judgment of acquittal by the High Court.

iv. Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan

Citation:(1997) 10 SCC 44
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 1996
Coram:M.K. Mukherjee, K.Venkataswami, JJ.
Author: M.K. MukherjeeJ.
Decided on: May 8, 1997

Full text available here

Facts
This case pertains to conviction for murder awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. During the course of investigation, specimen fingerprints and footprints of the appellants were sent to the expert for comparison with the fingerprints and footprints earlier found at the crime scene. To prove the role of appellant Mohd. Yusuf,  the prosecution relied upon the discovery of his fingerprint on a glass tumbler, certain recoveries pursuant to his statement and his footprints in the house of the deceased. 

Findings
The Court deemed it unsafe to accept the footprint evidence because the sample footprints were not taken before a Magistrate. It further noted that the science of identification of footprints is not a fully developed science and therefore  in a given case it may be used to reinforce the conclusions as to the identity of a culprit already arrived at on the basis of other evidence. This was however not such a case. On an analysis of the evidence, the Court set aside the convictions of the appellants.

v. Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 2016 (4) RLW 3297 (Raj.)

Type: D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 709 of 2009
Coram:Mohammad Rafiq and Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.
Author: Vijay Kumar Vyas
Decided on: MAY 31, 2016

Full text available here

Facts
The Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for rape and murder of a minor girl. The prosecution relies upon the footprints found near the well from where the body of the deceased was recovered and matches it to the footprints taken from the Appellant. 

Findings
The High Court noted that the FSL report reports findings on the impressions of the left and right footwear sole impressions, which are different from the footprints. The Court noted that as per the Tehsildar, in whose presence the foot moulds were lifted from the Police Station, footprints of the right foot and left foot were taken using plaster of paris. He admitted that the memos prepared while taking the moulds do not mention that the footwear impressions of the jutis was taken by wearing the jutis. Considering that the shoes recovered were not presented as evidence and a large number of persons had gathered at the crime scene, the evidence of footwear impressions submitted by the prosecution was unreliable. The Court further reiterated that evidence of footprints is a weak type of evidence and it can only be used to reinforce the conclusion arrived at by the Court on the basis of other evidence. Finally, the Court held that there were several loopholes in the case of the prosecution and the conviction of the Appellant could not be sustained.

i. Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1

Citation: (2017) 6 SCC 1
Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017 with 609-10 of 2017
Coram: Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Author: Dipak Misra J.; R. Banumathi, J.(Concurring)
Decided on: May 5, 2017


Full text available here

Facts
The Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for the gangrape and murder of the prosecutrix. Along with other evidence, the prosecution relied on DNA evidence to convict the appellants. While confirming the conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court discussed the importance of DNA evidence.

Findings
The Court noted that India, like several other countries, is increasingly relying upon DNA evidence. It further emphasised on the importance of such evidence by referring to Sections 53A and 164A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which relate to examination of a person accused of rape and a victim of rape respectively to hold that DNA profiling is now a part of the statutory scheme. After referring to various precedents, the Court held that a DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented. In case the DNA report is rejected, it must be established that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. A DNA report should be accepted if there is no error in sampling and no indication of tampering of samples.

ii. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI

Citation: (2010) 9 SCC 747
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2007
Coram: H.S. Bedi, C.K. Prasad, JJ.
Author: H.S. Bedi, J.
Decided on: October 6, 2010


Full text available here

Facts
The Appellant was convicted of rape and murder. The Trial Court rejected the DNA report and the other evidence and acquitted the accused. The High Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court, including on DNA evidence, and sentenced the accused to death. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Findings
While discussing DNA evidence, The Court held that a judge cannot substitute their own opinion for that of an expert, particularly in a science such as DNA profiling. Two scientists had opined that the DNA from the semen stains on the underwear of the deceased and from the swabs and slides were “from a single source and that source was the appellant”. By referring to a large number of textbooks, the Trial Court gave adverse findings on the accuracy of the DNA examination and ignored the complexity and technical nature of the subject. The Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the DNA report because nothing adverse could be pointed out against the two experts who had submitted it. Therefore, the Court accepted that the DNA report was “scientifically accurate and an exact science”.

iii. Anil v. State of Maharashtra

Citation:(2014) 4 SCC 69
Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419-20 of 2012
Coram:K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, Vikramjit Sen, JJ.
Author: K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J.
Decided on: February 20, 2014

Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was accused of carnal intercourse with a minor boy and strangulating him to death. He was convicted and awarded the death sentence by the Trial Court which was confirmed by the High Court. While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment with thirty years without remission.

Findings
The expert in this case, an Assistant Chemical Analyser stated that she had conducted two DNA tests i.e. STR and Y-STR profiling. The Court noted that both the tests were scientifically proven and there was nothing to doubt the competence of the expert. Therefore, the DNA test report which showed that the deceased was subject to unnatural sex was admissible. The Court also held that generally, when the DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with the DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both the samples have the same biological origin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, however, variance in a particular result can depend on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory.

iv. Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya v. State of Gujarat and Anr

Citation:2009 CRI. LJ 2888
Type: Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2008
Coram:A.L. Dave, J.C. Upadhyaya, JJ.
Author: A.L. Dave, J.
Decided on: January 16, 2009

Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was convicted of kidnapping and rape by the Trial Court while the co-accused was acquitted. The pregnant prosecutrix and both the accused persons had been medically examined and their DNA samples had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the report, the DNA profile of the co-accused excluded him as the biological father of the foetus of the prosecutrix, whereas the test concluded that DNA profile of the appellant was consistent as biological father of the foetus.

Findings
The question before the High Court was whether the DNA report could be the sole basis to establish the guilt of the accused for rape in absence of any other evidence. The Court held that a positive DNA report can be of great significance, where there is supporting evidence, depending on the strength and quality of that evidence. However, if it is the sole piece of evidence, it cannot conclusively fix the identity. However, if the report is negative, it would conclusively exonerate the accused from the charge. The Court noted that the DNA science and report is founded on probability theory. When the profiles of accused and foetus are consistent, it shows a probability as per Random Occurrence Ratio. That cannot be treated as conclusive proof and be the sole basis of conviction in a criminal case, especially when Random Occurrence Ratio is unavailable.

v. Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra

Review Petition (Criminal) Nos. 306-307 of 2013
Coram:Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Author: Madan B. Lokur, J.
December 12, 2018

Full text available here

Facts
The Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a minor girl. His conviction and death sentence had been upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. As his review petition has been dismissed through circulation, after the Constitution Bench decision in Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the Petitioner was granted an opportunity of a limited oral hearing for his review petition. While re-hearing his review petition in open court, the Supreme Court confirmed his conviction but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment.

Findings
In its decision, the Supreme Court analysed Sections 53A and 164A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to stress on the importance of medical examination of a person accused of rape and the victim of rape, and the need for DNA examinations in such cases. It noted that “somewhat archaic methods of investigation” must be given up and the “remarkable technological advancements” in forensic science must be fully utilized. It held that it would be unfortunate for the prosecution to decline to produce DNA evidence especially when the facility for conducting DNA profiling is available in India. While the Court clarified that it was not going to the extent of holding that if there is no DNA profiling, the prosecution case cannot be proved, it was of the view that where DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the Trial Court, an adverse consequence would follow for the prosecution.

vi. Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 771

Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-81 of 2009 with 799-802 and 822-24 of 2009
Coram: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shatanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Author: Mohan M. Shatanagoudar, J.
March 29, 2019

Full text available here

Facts
The appellant was convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The body of the deceased was identified through the superimposition technique where the image of the recovered skull was superimposed on the photograph of the deceased. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and modified the charges to murder. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged his conviction on several grounds, including that superimposition technique was used instead of DNA profiling to identify the deceased.

Findings
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. While discussing the argument regarding the absence of DNA profiling, the Court reiterated that it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court by furnishing the report based on their expertise along with reasons so as to enable the Court to form its independent judgment by assessing such materials. However, the opinion evidence is advisory and the Court is not bound by expert evidence. The Court further noted that while the accuracy of DNA evidence is increasing, it cannot be considered infallible. Therefore, the absence of DNA evidence would not lead to an adverse inference, especially due to the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence.

i. Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 2

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1256 of 2017
Coram: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari JJ.
Author: Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Decided on: JANUARY 05, 2021


Full text available here

Facts
The case involved six accused who were convicted for dacoity and murder of four individuals. Three of the convicted persons were acquitted by the High Court while the sentences imposed on others i.e. life imprisonment for Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju and death sentence for Hari Om, were confirmed. The conviction for Sanjay and Saurabh was primarily based on fingerprint examination, which matched the latent prints found on the items in the deceased’s house with exemplar prints of the appellants.

Findings
While dismissing the fingerprint evidence, the Supreme Court held that the method applied for lifting latent prints from the items found in the deceased’s house was not specified in the fingerprint report. Further, the procedure adopted for taking photographs of the latent prints which were sent for examination to the Director, Fingerprint Bureau, Lucknow was not recorded and whether the procedure was a trusted one. After referring to the procedure in the Karnataka Police Manual, the Court also noted that the record does not show if the items from which the latent prints were lifted were available for analysis by the Fingerprint Bureau. Finally, the Supreme Court questioned the training, and experience of the Constable in question who had lifted the latent prints in question. Therefore, the Court concluded that the report of the Fingerprint Bureau was unreliable. Even if the fingerprint evidence was admitted, there was absence of substantive evidence to link the Appellants to the crime. In light of this, the Supreme Court acquitted the three Appellants.

ii. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sitaram Gajraj Singh Rajput and others 1978 MPLJ 197

Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 1971
Coram: G.P. Singh and C.P. Sen, JJ.
Author: C.P. Sen, JJ
Decided on: SEPTEMBER 27, 1977


Full text available here

Facts
The respondents were convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust and misappropriation by preparing false muster-rolls and showing payments to fictitious persons working as labourers. It was alleged that some of the respondents had used their thumb impressions against the names of labourers showing payments to them. The Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the respondents. The State Fingerprint Expert had failed to enlarge photos of all the disputed thumb impressions and conducted it only for 12 thumb marks. Further, correct procedure was not followed while comparing the disputed impressions with the specimen thumb impressions. Finally due to contradictions in the reasoning of the Fingerprint expert during cross-examination, the trial court dismissed the evidence and acquitted the Respondents.

Findings
The Madhya Pradesh High Court referred to the different standards in determining the points of similarities between a disputed and specimen fingerprint. In addition to international standards such as that of FBI and Scotland Yard, it referred to the Fingerprint Manual of Madhya Pradesh. The Court concluded that “no hard and fast rule” can be laid out in fixing the number of points of similarities required for comparison. In the instant case, the Court emphasised on the need of enlarged photos of the disputed and specimen fingerprints and stressed on the difficulties of examining the prints with a magnifying glass. The Court also held that the Expert had not examined the general pattern of the specimen and disputed prints. In conclusion, the Court did not find fault with the reasoning of the Trial Court and affirmed its decision.

i. Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Ors

AIR 1964 SC 529
Type: Civil Appeal No. 295 of 1960
Coram: P.B. Gajendragadkar, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala
Author: K.N. Wanchoo, J
Decided on: September 13, 1963

Full Text Available Here

Facts
The case pertained to a disputed will. The District Judge held that the testator was of sound mind, the will was duly attested, executed and was genuine. On appeal before the High Court, the respondents raised the issue of execution and attestation of the will. As per the expert opinion, though the will was dated August 29, 1943, the signature of the testator appearing at the bottom of the will could not have been made in 1943. According to the expert, there was no tremor in the writing of the will but a tremor appeared in the signature. It was the respondent’s case that there was no tremor in the writing of the testator and it only appeared in 1946 and started increasing till his death in 1947. Relying on the expert evidence, the High Court reversed the Trial Court judgment and rejected the petition for probate.

Findings
The Supreme Court held that the evidence of the expert was not conclusive and could not falsify the evidence of the attesting witnesses and also the circumstances which showed that the will was signed in 1943. The Court deemed it necessary to observe that an expert’s opinion as to handwriting is opinion evidence and can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence, it needs to be seen if it is corroborated either by clear direct or circumstantial evidence. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that it was not established by expert opinion that the signature could not have been made on August 29, 1943.

ii. Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326

Type: Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1964
Coram: M. Hidayatullah, V. Bhargava, JJ.
Author: M. Hidayatullah, J.
December 13, 1966

Full text available here

Facts
The Appellant was convicted for criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and personation. The Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of a handwriting expert to hold Fakhruddin guilty of forgery. In this context, the Supreme Court examined the law on handwriting evidence.

Findings
The Court held that where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must, with the assistance of the expert, come to its own conclusion on whether it can be held that two writings are by the same person. This does not mean that the Court must play the role of an expert but the Court may accept a fact to be proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness. In this case, the Court concluded that the disputed writings were so clearly by the same person that one does not even need expert guidance. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

iii. Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704

Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 125 of 1975
Coram: R.S. Sarkaria, O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.
Author: O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
November 21, 1979

Full text available here

Facts
This case pertains to murder where a handwritten note was discovered from the room of the deceased indicating that the offence was committed by frustrated and unemployed graduates. As per the expert opinion, the handwritten note and specimen of writing of the Appellant were the same.

Findings
While analysing the law on expert evidence, the Court first observed that the “expert is no accomplice”. It further noted that the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert is not because experts are unreliable witnesses but because “human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion.” While noting that the more developed and perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion, the Court observed that the science of identification of handwriting was not nearly as perfect as fingerprints. It clarified that the opinion of a handwriting expert cannot be disregarded as an invariable rule and held that courts must insist upon substantial corroboration in every case, even if the opinion is backed by the soundest of reasons. It is the duty of an expert to furnish necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusion so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment. Courts should proceed cautiously while considering the opinion of a handwriting expert and must probe the reasons for the opinion. The Court confirmed the Appellant’s conviction on the basis his handwriting matched the note left on the deceased’s table.

iv. Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Anr (2019) 14 SCC 220

Type: Civil Appeal Nos. 7818-19 of 2009
Coram: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
August 27, 2019

Full text available here

Facts
This case pertains to a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff with respect to an agreement of sale. The defendants in their written statement denied the case of the plaintiff, specifically alleging that the agreement of sale is forged. The expert opined that the admitted signatures of the first defendant and the disputed signature do not tally, thereby meaning that it is forged. The trial court did not rely on the expert opinion and held that the opinion was not corroborated by any reliable evidence and that the evidence of the attesting witnesses was cogent and reliable. The High Court solely relied upon the expert opinion and concluded that the signature of the first defendant on the agreement of sale was forged.

Findings
The Court relied on its decisions in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. and Alamgir v. State (NCT of Delhi) to strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the Court to approach opinion evidence cautiously and that the court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. It held that the observations in these judgments do not go against the proposition in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In light of the facts of the case, the Court disregarded the expert report and held that the High Court had incorrectly placed reliance on it.