Handwriting expert’s opinion is generally not considered to be a substantive evidence. It is generally required to be corroborated by other evidence. In the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held as under:
“…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 all the probabilities are against the expert’s opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly in consistent with it.”
“…the mere opinion of the expert cannot override the positive evidence of the attesting witnesses in a case like this where there are no suspicious circumstances.”
The expert’s evidence is not binding on the court. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 709, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is not the province of the expert to act as Judge or Jury, and that the real function of the expert is to put before the court all the materials, together with reasons which induce him to come to the conclusion, so that the court, although not an expert, may form its own judgment by its own observation of those materials. The Court further observed that:
“An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.” [Also see: Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221.]
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
