Supreme Court Quashes Conviction Where Original Postal Cover Not Produced, Reliance on Handwriting Expert Was Insufficient

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave from a conviction in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021. The appellant challenged his convictions under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 IPC, contending that the trial and appellate courts placed undue reliance on the opinion of a handwriting expert in the absence of the original postal cover that allegedly bore his handwriting.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgments of the trial Court, the appellate Court and the Madras High Court and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that, where the prosecution failed to produce the primary evidence — the original postal cover said to contain the accused’s handwriting — the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report was rendered redundant. The Court relied on this Court’s locus classicus in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. to emphasise that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert required cautious treatment and might require corroboration depending on the facts; however, there was no blanket rule that such evidence must always be corroborated. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: 11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.

Background: The prosecution alleged that a marksheet produced by one Kumari Amudha for MBBS admission was fabricated and was transmitted in a postal cover bearing the appellant’s handwriting. After investigation, the appellant and co-accused were charged; the trial Court convicted them on 25 October 2016 and sentenced the appellant to terms already undergone as an undertrial and imposed fines. The Sessions Court affirmed conviction but reduced fines; the High Court dismissed the revision petition. At the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel, Shri S. Nagamuthu, contended that the only incriminating link was the handwriting on the postal cover and that the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited in evidence. It was argued that the trial Court impermissibly relied on the deposition of a co-accused and on the handwriting expert (PW-18) without the expert’s reasoning sheet having been proved on oath, rendering the report inadmissible or at least of no independent probative value.

The State responded that the original cover could not be traced and that the photostat copy could be relied upon as secondary evidence; it noted that a listed witness (PW-9) had been summoned to face trial and that the trial Court had found his evidence unacceptable. The Supreme Court examined the record and the expert’s testimony, observed that the handwriting expert did not specifically identify the postal cover produced to him as the same document that was relied upon in court, and concluded that “Since the postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting the prosecution theory that the same bore the handwriting of the accused appellant.” Applying Murari Lal, the Court held that the failure to produce the primary document destroyed the foundation for acceptance of the expert opinion and entitled the appellant to a clean acquittal. The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgments were quashed and set aside. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 309 Case Title: C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Chennai Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel For the Respondent(s): Counsel for the State (name not specified in judgment)