3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

Shares

Home Law Web Search Engine Privacy Policy - Law Web Disclaimer Terms of Use

Tuesday, 18 June 2019

Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of Thoughts

evidence of handwriting expert

We will first consider the argument, a State argument often heard, particularly in
criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be
acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how
We begin with
the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent.
Like us On Facebook
the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There
is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence Law Web
69K likes
to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice
and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally
Like Page
been said on very high authority that it would be
hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of
a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the
opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other
kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are
unreliable witnesses--the equality of credibility or
incredibility being one which an expert shares with all Follow us On Twitter

other witnesses--, but because all human judgment is @LawWeb1

fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some

Connect Us On LinkedIn
defect of observation, some error of premises or honest
mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a
science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the
science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-
prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is
practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of
handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is
a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule
and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the
opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert Popular Posts
to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of
When Subsequent unregistered will prevail over
witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given registered will?

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 1/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert
The learned Single Judge then enumerated the
by him. Anexpert deposes and not decides. His duty 'is to following reasons for coming to the conclusion that
the execution of Will dated 10.2.1992 was s...
furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria
Whether Legal representative of deceased
for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to judgement debtor impleaded in Execution
proceedings can challenge decree which has
attained finality against his predecessor in interest?
enable the judge to form his own independent judgment In our considered opinion the right which had been
adjudicated in the suit in the present matter and the
by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in findings which have been record...
Shares
evidence'. (Vide Lord President Cooper in Decie v. Whether trial court can stay execution of decree till
disposal of appeal?
Edinburgh Magistrate 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor As per Ext.P11, the court below stayed the
execution petition till the disposal of the appeal. The

Cross in his Evidence). application was filed under Order 21 Ru...

Whether revenue authorities have jurisdiction to

decide the issue of the genuineness of will during
mutation proceeding?
We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, If an application under Section 110 of
MPLR Code is filed for mutation of the name of
nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a all the legal heirs,...

rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting Under which circumstances the Court Can Order
Husband To Pay Wife Monetary Expenses In Lieu Of
Shared House?
expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner No.1 is the
husband of the respondent. However, the Revision
corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect Petitioner is living with first wife. Tak...

nature of the science of identification of handwriting,

Followers
the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of Followers (581) Next
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
Follow
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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1975

Decided On: 21.11.1979

Murarilal Vs. State of M.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R.S. Sarkaria and O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.

Citations: 1980 AIR 531, 1980 SCR (2) 249

1. Murari Lal, who was accused No. 2 before the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was
convicted Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death. He
was also convicted Under Section 460 read with Sections 34, 457, 380, 392,
394 and 397, Indian Penal Code but sentenced Under Section 460 read with
Section 34 and Section 394 read with Section 397 only to rigorous imprisonment
for a period of 7 years on each count. On appeal by Murari Lal and on reference
by the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh altered the
conviction from Section 302 Indian Penal Code to Section 302 read with Section
34 Indian Penal Code and substituted the sentence of imprisonment for life for

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 2/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

the sentence of death. Otherwise the appeal was dismissed. Murari Lal has
preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court. H.D. Sonawala (the
deceased) used to live alone in one of the two 'quarters' in the compound of the
Parai Dharmshala at Jabalpur. He was the Area Organiser of Charak
Pharmaceuticals Company of Bombay. On the night of 12-7-1972 he went out to
dinner at the house of P.W. 2 and returned home at about midnight. He retired
for the night. Next morning, his driver P.W. 9 and his servant P.W. 6 came to the
Shares
house in the usual course to attend to their duties, The gate was found locked.
They called out their master but there was no response. P.W. 6 who also had a
key opened the lock and went inside. Sonawala was found murdered in his bed.
A first information report was given at the police station Omti, Jabalpur. The
Station House Officer, P.W. 28, came to the scene, found things in the room
strewn about in a pell-mell condition. He seized various articles. One of the
articles so seized was a prescription pad Ex. P-9. On pages A to F of Ex. P-9,
there were writings of the deceased but on page 6, there was a writing in Hindi
in pencil which was as follows;

(Matter being in Hindi it is omitted.--Ed)

Translated into English it means:

Though we have passed B.A., we have not secured any employment because
there is none to care. This is the consequence. sd/- Balle Singh". The dead
body of Sonawala was sent to the Medical Officer for post-mortem examination.
There was an incised wound on the neck 7 1/2" long, the maximum width of
which was 2" of tissues and vessels up to the trachea were cut. Trachea was
also cut. For several months after the discovery of the murder, the investigation
made no progress till 18-2-1973. On that day pursuant to information received in
connection with some other case of theft in which one Roop Chand appeared to
be involved, the Station House Officer secured the presence of Petrick (A-1) and
questioned. Petrick made a statement and led them to his room from which two
choppers and as many as 234 items of stolen property were seized. We may
mention that out of the 234 items so seized, only two were alleged to belong to
Sonawala, one was a tie-pin and the other was a cheque-book. Thereafter, the
house of Petrick's father Gabrial was also searched and 310 items of stolen
property were recovered, none of which has anything to do with this case. On
19-2-73 Murari Lal (A-2) said to be a friend of Petrick was questioned. He made
a statement and led them to the house of his maternal-uncle. Suraj Prasad (A-
4). Murari Lal asked his uncle to produce the wrist-watch, which was done. The
wrist-watch had some special characteristic of its own and it was later duly
identified by unimpeachable evidence as belonging to the deceased. Specimen
writings Exs. P-41 to P-54 of Murari Lal were obtained. They were sent to a
handwriting and finger-print expert P.W. 15 along with the prescription pad Ex.
P-9, for his opinion. The expert gave his opinion that the writing in Hindi at page
6 of Ex. P-9 and the specimen writings of Exs. P-41 to P-54 were made by the
same person. Petrick, Murari Lal, Gabrial and Suraj Prasad were tried by the
learned Sessions Judge. Suraj Prasad was acquitted. Gabrial was convicted
under Section 411. Petrick and Murari Lal were both convicted Under Section
302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death as already mentioned. The sentence of death
passed on Petrick and Murari Lal was altered to imprisonment for life by the
High Court. Petrick has not further appealed but Murari Lal has.
2. The two vital circumstances against Murari Lal were: (1) the recovery of a
wrist-watch which belonged to the deceased Sonawala and (2) the writing in
Hindi at page 6 of Ex. P-9 which was found to be in his handwriting indicating
his presence in the house of the deceased on the night of the murder and his
participation in the commission of the offences. Shri R.C. Kohli, learned Counsel
for the Appellant, argued that the recovery of the wrist-watch was too remote in
point of time to connect the Appellant with the crime. He further argued that the
High Court fell into a grave error in concluding that the writing at page 6 of Ex.
P-9 was that of the Appellant. He submitted that the evidence of P.W. 8 who
claimed to be familiar with the handwriting of the Appellant was wholly
unacceptable, that it was not permissible in law to act upon the uncorroborated

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 3/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

opinion-evidence of the expert P.W. 15 and that the High Court fell into a serious
error in attempting to compare the writing in Ex. P-9 with the admitted writing of
the Appellant.

3. We will first consider the argument, a State argument often heard, particularly
in criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not
be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out
Shares
how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with
the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification
for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as
that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has
occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous
to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the
hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any
other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable
witnesses--the equality of credibility or incredibility being one which an
expert shares with all other witnesses--, but because all 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. The
more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an
incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and
imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near
perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the
other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect
and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion
of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial
corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the
soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an
initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to
be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes
and not decides. His duty 'is to furnish the judge with the necessary
scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to
enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application
of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence'. (Vide Lord President
Cooper in Decie v. Edinburgh Magistrate 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor
Cross in his Evidence).

4. From the earliest times, courts have received the opinion of experts. As long
ago as 1553 it was said in Buckley v. Rice Thomas (1554) 1 Plowden 118:

If matters arise in our law which concern other sciences or faculties, we

commonly apply for the aid of that science or faculty which it concerns. This is a
commendable thing in our law. For thereby it appears that we do not dismiss all
other sciences but our own, but we approve of them and encourage them as
things worthy of commendation.
5. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and
where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of
handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' 'in questions as to identity
of handwriting' is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the
Evidence Act, as for example like Illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitles the
Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is
corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a
handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The
Evidence Act itself (Section 3) tells us that 'a fact is said to be proved when,
after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or
considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the
circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists'. It
is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the
Evidence Act lest we act on artificial standard of proof not warranted by the
provisions of the Act Further, Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court
may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 4/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is
also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not
otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinion
of experts, when such opinions are relevant So, corroboration may not
invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert
and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a
court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and
Shares
fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert
supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not
corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a
handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the
opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or
reject it.

6. Apart from principle, let us examine if precedents justify invariable insistence

on corroboration, We have referred to Phipson on Evidence, Cross on
Evidence, Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, Archibald on Criminal pleadings,
Evidence and Practice and Halsbury's Laws, England but we were unable to
find a single sentence hinting at such a rule. We may now refer to some of the
decisions of this Court In Ram Chandra v. U.P. State MANU/SC/0107/1956 : AIR
1957 SC 381, Jagannadha Das, J. observed; "It may be that normally it is not
safe to treat expert evidence as for handwriting as sufficient basis for conviction"
(emphasis ours). 'May" and 'normally' make our point about the absence of an
inflexible rule. In Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohammad Isa MANU/SC/0040/1962 :
(1963) 3 SCR 722, Gajendragadkar, J. observed) "Evidence given by expert can
never be conclusive, because after all it is opinion evidence", a statement which
carries as nowhere on the question now under consideration. Nor, can the
statement be disputed because if is not so provided by the Evidence Act and, on
the contrary, Section 46 expressly makes opinion evidence challengeable by
facts, otherwise irrelevant And as Lord President Cooper observed in Davis V.
Edinburgh Magistrate: "The parties have invoked the decision of a judicial
tribunal and not an oracular pronouncement by an expert".

7. In Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar MANU/SC/0278/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 529,

Wanchoo, J. after noticing various features of the opinion of the expert said:

We do not consider in the circumstances of this case that the evidence of the
expert is conclusive and can falsify the evidence of the attesting witnesses and
also the circumstances which go to show that this will must have been signed in
1943 as it purports to be. Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's
evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the
place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see
if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
In the present case the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the
direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly
inconsistent with it".
So, there was acceptable direct testimony which was destructive of the expert's
opinion; there were other features also which made the expert's opinion
unreliable. The observations regarding corroboration must be read in that
context and it is worthy of note that even so the expression used was It is usual'
and not 'it is necessary',
8. In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0332/1966 : AIR 1967
SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197, Hidayatullah, J. said:

Both Under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former
by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting
from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy
itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such
means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or
proved writings and to compare them with the disputed one, not to become an
handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and
to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison depends

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 5/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the

finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In
this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to
scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an
expert's opinion is given, the Court, must see for itself and with the assistance of
the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two
writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the
Shares
role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact 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.
These observations lend no support to any requirement as to corroboration of
expert testimony. On the other hand, the facts show that the Court ultimately did
act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the expert though the judges took the
precaution of comparing the writing themselves,

9. Finally, we come to Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0105/1977

: AIR 1977 SC 1091 upon which Sri R.C. Kohli, learned Counsel, placed great
reliance. It was said by this Court:

...but we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the Appellant

merely on the strength 'of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now
well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and
perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert.
There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to
base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of
law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P.
MANU/SC/0107/1956 : AIR 1957 SC 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert
handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon
when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court
again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa MANU/SC/0040/1962 : AIR 1963
SC 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it
is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v.
Subodh Kumar MANU/SC/0278/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 529 where it was pointed
out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion
evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before
acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is
corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This
Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in
regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0332/1966 : AIR
1967 SC 1326 and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky
to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before
acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to sea whether it is
corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.
The above extracted passage, undoubtedly, contains some sweeping general
observations. But we do not think that the observations were meant to be
observations of general application or as laying down any legal principle. It was
plainly intended to be a rule of caution and not a rule of law as is clear from the
statement 'it has almost become a rule of law'. 'Almost', we presume, means
'not quite'. It was said by the Court there was a 'profusion of precedential
authority' which insisted upon corroboration and reference was made to Ram
Chandra v. State of U.P., Ishwari Prasad v. Mohammed Isa, Shashi Kumar v.
Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. We have already discussed
these cases and observed that none of them supports, the proposition that
corroboration must invariably be sought before opinion evidence can be
accepted. There appears to be some mistake in the last sentence of the above
extracted passage because we are unable to find in Fakhruddin v: State of
Madhya Pradesh any statement such as the one attributed. In fact, in that case,
the learned Judges acted upon the sole testimony of the expert after satisfying
themselves about the correctness of the opinion by comparing the writings
themselves. We do think that the observations in Magan Bihari Lal v. State of
Punjab must be understood as referring to the facts of the particular case.

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 6/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

10. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of
prudence which has crystallised 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
Shares
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.
11. The argument that the Court should not venture to compare writings Itself,
as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force.
Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare
disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing
is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous
to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which
judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary.

There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are
heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to
afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare
the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by
recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert
opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to
seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the Court's own experience
and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with
or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh
Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh were cases where the Court
itself compared the writings.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case before us, Sri Kohli had not a word of
criticism to offer against the reasons given by the expert P.W. 15, for his opinion.
We have perused the reasons given by the expert as well as his cross-
examination. Nothing has been elicited to throw the least doubt on the
correctness of the opinion. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court
compared the disputed writing at page 6 in Ex. P-9 with the admitted writings
and found, in conjunction with the opinion of the expert, that the author was the
same person. We are unable to find any ground for disagreeing with the
findings.

13. We may at this juncture consider the argument of Sri Kohli that the internal
evidence afforded by the document showed that the Appellant was not its
author. He argued that the Appellant was not even a matriculate whereas the
author of the document had described himself as a graduate. And, what
necessity was there for a murderer and robber to write a note like that,
questioned Mr. Kohli. It appears to us that the note was designed to lay a false
trail by making it appear that the murder and the robbery were the handiwork of
some frustrated and unemployed young graduates, expressing their resentment
against the world which had shown no regard for their existence. The other
important circumstance against the Appellant was the recovery of the
deceased's watch at the Appellant's instance. That the deceased was the owner
of the watch was not disputed before us. That the watch was recovered at the
instance of the Appellant was also not disputed before us. What was urged was
that there was no reason to reject the explanation given by the Appellant in his
statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure that he had

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 7/8
3/19/23, 5:19 PM Law Web: Landmark judgment of Supreme court on appreciation of evidence of handwriting expert

purchased the watch from Roop Chand. Apart from his statement, there is
nothing in the evidence to substantiate his case. On the other hand, we think
that, having come to know that the statement of Roop Chand in connection with
the investigation into another theft case had led the police to interrogate Petrick,
the Appellant very cleverly tried to foist previous possessions of the watch on
Roop Chand. We are not prepared to accept the Appellant's explanation. Even
so, it was urged, the recovery was too remote in point of time to be linked with
Shares
the robbery and the murder. It is true that there was a considerable time-lag. We
might have found it difficult to link the recovery of the watch with the robbery and
the murder had this been the only circumstance. But, we have the other vital
circumstance that a writing made by the Appellant was left on the deceased's
table that night. That circumstance coupled with the recovery of the dead man's
watch at the instance of the Appellant, are sufficient, in our opinion, in the
absence of any acceptable explanation, to hold the Appellant guilty of the
offences of which he has been convicted. The appeal is dismissed.

Print Page

322
Shares

at 20:23

Labels: appreciation of evidence, expert evidence, handwriting expert, Supreme Court of India

No comments:

Post a Comment
To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with Blogger.

SIGN IN WITH BLOGGER

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Powered by Blogger.

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/06/landmark-judgment-of-supreme-court-on.html 8/8