How is the disputed handwriting of a person proved? Modes of Proving disputed Handwriting.

Question: How is the disputed handwriting of a person proved? Modes of Proving disputed Handwriting. [U.P.P.C.S.J. 1987, Raj. J.S. 1994, Delhi J.S. 1984]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [How is the disputed handwriting of a person proved? Modes of Proving disputed Handwriting.]

Answer

In the landmark case of Ram Narain v. State of UP [AIR 1973 SC 2200], the Supreme Court has discussed proving disputed handwriting. In this case, a child was kidnapped. The parent of the child received a handwritten postcard followed by an inland letter demanding Rs.1,000 and Rs. 5,000, respectively as a ransom for the child. The author of the letters was traced and a handwriting expert testified the letters to be in the handwriting of the accused. Solely on the basis of this evidence the accused was convicted by the lower courts. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction.

The Court said: “Both under Sec. 45 and Sec. 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 observation. In either case, the court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings, not become a handwriting expert but to verify the opinion of the witness.

This is not to say that the court may play the role of an expert, but to say that the court may accept the fact only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion of the expert or the other witness”.

In this case, Dua J. himself compared the handwriting in question with proven handwriting of the accused and satisfied himself and held that no further corroboration was necessary.

The court held that if after comparison of disputed and admitted writings by the court itself, it is considered safe to accept the opinion of the expert, then the conclusion so arrived at cannot be attacked on special leave merely on the ground that comparison of handwriting is generally considered hazardous and inconclusive. It should be noted that the evidence of experts is not final or conclusive. The court may satisfy itself before relying on the expert opinion.

In Murari Lai v. State of M.P. (AIR 1980 SC 531), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on the evidence that the piece of writing left behind by the murderer in the room of the deceased was testified by a handwriting expert to be in the handwriting of the accused. The court also observed that even if no handwriting expert is produced before the court, the court has the power to compare the handwriting itself and decide the matter.

Moreover, Section 67 deals with Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced. It states:

If a document is alleged to be signed or written by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

Section 67 does not prescribe any particular mode of proof of signature • handwriting of a person. However, the following modes of proving signature or writing are recognized by the Act, viz.

1. by calling the person who signed or wrote the document;
2. by calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written;
3. by calling a handwriting expert (Sec. 45);
4. by calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person executing the document (Sec. 47);
5. by comparing in court the disputed signature/writing with some admitted signature/writing (Sec. 73);
6. by proof of admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document, that he signed or wrote it; or
7. by the statement of a deceased professional scribe, made in the ordinary course of business, that the signature on the document is that of a particular person.
8. Any other circumstantial evidence.

According to Section 73, when the Court has to satisfy itself whether the signature, writing or seal on a document is genuinely that of a person whose signature, etc. it purports to be, the Court may compare the same with another signature, etc. which is admitted or proved to be that of the person concerned although that signature, etc. has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

This section applies also, with necessary modifications, to finger impressions. Section 73 also enables the court to require any person present in the court to write any words or figures to enable the court to compare them with the words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X