Supreme Court of India
C. KAMALAKKANNANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 309
- Decided
- 3 March 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The conviction cannot be sustained because the prosecution failed to produce the original postal cover, rendering the handwriting expert’s opinion redundant; expert testimony need not be automatically corroborated but must be evaluated with caution.
Summary
The appellant was convicted under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of the IPC for allegedly preparing a postal cover that transmitted a forged marksheet. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of a handwriting expert who claimed the cover bore the appellant’s handwriting, but the original postal cover was never produced. The appellant contended that without the primary document, the expert’s opinion was inadmissible and required corroboration. The Supreme Court, relying on Murari Lal v. State of M.P., held that while expert testimony need not be per se corroborated, it must be examined cautiously and cannot stand when the primary evidence is absent. Consequently, the court found the expert’s report redundant and set aside the convictions, acquitting the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether the opinion of a handwriting expert must be corroborated before it can be acted upon.
- Whether a copy of a document can be admitted as secondary evidence when the original is not produced.
- Whether a conviction can be sustained in the absence of primary evidence of the disputed postal cover.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 45
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 120B, s. 468, s. 471
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated; whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal cover, a copy of the document is admissible. Headnotes† Evidence law – Handwriting expert testimony – Murari Lal v. State of M.P. followed – No rule of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But approach should be one of caution – Appellant convicted under Penal Code 1860, under Sections
Subjects
Postal coverForged marksheetHandwriting expertCorroborationExpert reportEvidentiary value
Judgment
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 629 : 2025 INSC 309
C. Kamalakkannan
v.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D.,
Chennai
(Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2025)
03 March 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated;
whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal
cover, a copy of the document is admissible.
Headnotes†
Evidence law – Handwriting expert testimony – Whether to be
corroborated – Murari Lal v. State of M.P. followed – No rule
of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must
never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But
approach should be one of caution – Appellant convicted under
Penal Code 1860, under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with
Section 109 for preparing a postal cover in which a forged
document was supposedly transmitted – Principal Sessions
Judge affirmed judgment passed by trial court – Revision
petition rejected by High Court vide impugned judgment:
Held: Reliance placed on Murari Lal v. State of M.P. – There
can be no fixed rule as such that the 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 should
be one of caution – Probe the reasons for the opinion, consider
all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.
[Para 12]
Postal cover allegedly bearing handwriting of the Appellant
not available on record – Prosecution failed to lead primary
* Author
630 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
evidence – Trial Court could not have concluded that
handwriting on disputed document was of the Appellant –
Postal cover never proved as per law – Evidentiary value
of handwriting expert rendered redundant – Conviction of
Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed:
Held: Trial court relied on testimony of handwriting expert to
conclude handwriting on postal cover was of the Appellant –
However, Trial court noted that the postal cover which allegedly
bore the handwriting of the Appellant was not available on
record – Prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in form of
the original postal cover – Trial court could not have concluded
that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the handwriting
on the disputed document was that of the accused appellant –
Non-exhibition of the original document will lead to the inference
that the impugned document i.e., the postal cover, was never
proved as per law – As a consequence, evidentiary value of the
handwriting expert’s report concluding that the postal cover bore
the handwriting of the accused appellant rendered redundant –
Conviction of Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed –
Appellant acquitted of all charges. [Para 13]
Case Law Cited
Murari Lal v. State of M.P [1980] 2 SCR 249 : (1980) 1 SCC
704 – followed.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal code, 1860; Evidence
Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Postal cover; Forged marksheet; Handwriting expert; Corroboration;
Expert report; Evidentiary value.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1056 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras, in CRLRC No. 1601 of 2017
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 631
C. Kamalakkannan v.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash, Mrs.
Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin
Selvam, Alagiri K.
Advs. for the Respondent:
V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Danish
Saifi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave
for assailing his conviction in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 on
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) read with
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 25th October, 2016, convicted
the appellant and the co-accused persons for the aforesaid
offences. The accused appellant was sentenced to imprisonment
already undergone as an undertrial i.e., from 22nd October, 1996 to
16th November, 1996 along with fine of Rs.1,000/- on the count of
Section 120B IPC; fine of Rs.1,000/- on the count of Section 468
IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/- on the 2 counts of Section 471 IPC. In
case of a default, the accused appellant was directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for two months.
4. In appeal3, the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur4, vide judgment
dated 23rd October, 2017 affirmed the judgment passed by the trial
1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’.
3 Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2017.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘appellate Court’.
632 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Court but reduced the fine amount to Rs.600/- on each count of
Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) of IPC. In case of a default,
the accused appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment
for two months.
5. The revision petition5 preferred by the accused appellant also stands
rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras6 vide judgment
dated 16th April, 2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in this
appeal by special leave.
6. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marksheet produced
by one Kumari Amudha while applying for admission in the MBBS
course, was found to be fabricated. She had secured only 767
marks out of 1200 marks whereas the document i.e., the marksheet
produced by her, for admission to the MBBS course portrayed the
marks obtained by her to be 1120 out of 1200 marks. A criminal
case7 came to be registered and after investigation, charge-sheet
was filed against the accused appellant and the other co-accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468
and 471 of IPC. As mentioned above, the trial resulted in the
conviction of the accused appellant and the appeal and revision
petition preferred by him were also dismissed. Hence this appeal
by special leave.
7. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel representing the
accused appellant urged that the only allegation of the prosecution
against the appellant is that he prepared the postal cover in which
the forged marksheet was supposedly transmitted. He urged that
the trial Court placed reliance on the deposition of the co-accused
for convicting the accused appellant which tantamounts to a
gross illegality. He further submitted that the original postal cover
was never produced and exhibited by the prosecution during its
evidence before the trial Court. Thus, the conclusion drawn by
the trial Court that the accused appellant had prepared the postal
cover in his handwriting is ex-facie illegal as the said fact was not
proved by leading proper evidence. He further contended that the
5 Criminal Revision Case No. 1601 of 2017.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’.
7 FIR being Crime No. 2172 of 1996.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 633
C. Kamalakkannan v.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
only evidence, based upon which the Courts below have recorded
the guilt of the accused appellant is that of the handwriting expert
(PW-18). Learned senior counsel urged that the reasoning sheet
prepared by the handwriting expert (PW-18) during the course of
scientific examination of the disputed documents was not brought
on record and proved by the handwriting expert while testifying
on oath and thus, the report of the handwriting expert (PW-18) is
inadmissible in evidence.
8. Shri S. Nagamuthu further submitted that the trial Court committed
a fundamental error while placing implicit reliance upon the report
of the handwriting expert (PW-18), the evidentiary value whereof,
has to be proved like any other document because the comparison
of handwriting is not a complete/conclusive science. He thus, urged
that the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges
by setting aside the impugned judgments.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, vehemently
and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s
counsel. He urged that the contention of the appellant’s counsel
that the trial Court placed reliance on the testimony of Vijaya Kumar
(PW-9), being the father of the girl i.e., Kumari Amudha, whose
marksheet was forged, is misplaced because the said Vijaya Kumar
(PW-9) was initially a listed witness of the prosecution, but after
recording his deposition as a witness, the trial Court summoned
him to face trial and there is a categoric finding in the trial Court’s
judgment that the evidence of Vijaya Kumar (PW-9) is not acceptable.
He further submitted that the original postal cover in which the forged
marksheet had been forwarded could not be traced out and thus,
the prosecution was very much entitled to place reliance on the
photostat copy of the said document by treating it to be admissible
as secondary evidence.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available
on record.
11. At the outset, it may be noted that the highest case of the prosecution
as against the accused appellant is that the postal cover in which the
forged marksheet was purportedly transmitted, bore his handwriting.
This fact was sought to be proved through the testimony of the
handwriting expert (PW-18).
634 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12. The locus classicus on this issue is Murari Lal v. State of M.P.8,
wherein this Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent
to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness
and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:-
“4. We will first consider the argument, a stale 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 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 quality 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
8 (1980) 1 SCC 704.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 635
C. Kamalakkannan v.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
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. [..]
6. 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………
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 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.
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
636 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from
the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The trial Court in the instant case, placed reliance on the testimony
of the handwriting expert (PW-18) and the expert report (Exhibit
A-31) to conclude that the handwriting on the postal cover was that
of C. Kamalakkannan i.e., the second accused (appellant herein).
To test the veracity of this finding, we have perused the material
available on record and find that the trial Court, in its judgment has
noted that the postal cover which allegedly bore the handwriting of
C. Kamalakkannan, the second accused (appellant herein) was not
available on record and thus, the accused appellant had raised an
objection against exhibiting the copy thereof. Consequently, the postal
cover could not be exhibited in evidence. As the prosecution failed to
lead primary evidence, in form of the original postal cover, the trial
Court could not have concluded that the prosecution had succeeded
in proving that the handwriting on the disputed document was that of
the accused appellant. Non-exhibiting of the original document would
lead to the only possible inference that the questioned document i.e.,
the postal cover was never proved as per law and as a consequence,
the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report concluding
that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant
is rendered redundant.
14. Furthermore, on going through the evidence of the handwriting expert
(PW-18), as referred to in the trial Court’s judgment, we find that the
expert witness stated that he received the documents as Exhibit A-2,
Exhibit A-14 and Exhibit A-15 and a postal cover. Thus, even the
handwriting expert (PW-18) did not identify the postal cover, which
was the subject matter of examination, as being the same which
allegedly bore the handwriting of the accused appellant.
15. In wake of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding
that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the
disputed postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly
posted. 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. As a
result, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 637
C. Kamalakkannan v.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
and affirmed by the appellate Court as well as the High Court does
not stand to scrutiny and the appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal.
16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments, dated
25th October, 2016 passed by the trial Court, dated 23rd October, 2017
passed by the appellate Court and dated 16th April, 2019 passed by
the High Court, are hereby quashed and set aside.
17. The appellant is acquitted of the charges.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibhani Ghosh, Adv.)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Postal cover"Sign in to search