The Imperative of Original Evidence in Handwriting Verification

Introduction

This commentary discusses the Supreme Court of India’s Judgment in the case of C. Kamalakkannan v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 309), decided on March 3, 2025. At the heart of this case is the significance of producing original documentary evidence, particularly when relying on handwriting expert testimony to prove allegations of forgery.

The criminal proceedings originated from allegations that a forged marksheet was submitted for admission to the MBBS course by one of the co-accused (Kumari Amudha). The appellant, Mr. C. Kamalakkannan, was allegedly involved in the preparation of a postal cover containing the forged marksheet. After prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court set aside the appellant’s conviction, clarifying crucial principles on using secondary evidence and expert testimony in criminal trials.

The primary issues revolved around whether the prosecution’s failure to produce the original postal cover, coupled with reliance on a handwriting expert’s report unsupported by the original document, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. This commentary will break down the Judgment’s key highlights, analyze the Court’s discussion of legal principles, and explain its broader impact on evidentiary requirements in criminal cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Judgment overturned the lower courts’ rulings that had convicted the appellant for offenses under sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The foundational prosecution evidence rested on the testimony of a handwriting expert who allegedly matched the appellant’s handwriting to a postal cover used to transmit a forged marksheet. However, the Supreme Court noted the following:

• The original postal cover was never produced in court. All that was relied upon was a photostat copy, and that copy could not be exhibited in evidence due to the appellant’s objections.
• The handwriting expert did not demonstrate that the cover he examined was the same one purportedly used to transmit the forged marksheet.
• Because the prosecution failed to establish a proper basis for admitting secondary evidence and did not bring the original document to trial, the testimony of the handwriting expert was left uncorroborated.
• The Court clarified that while expert testimony can be vital, it must be supported by duly admitted primary evidence, especially in the realm of handwriting verification, which is not a conclusively perfect science.

In view of these considerations, the Supreme Court held that the conviction could not stand and acquitted the appellant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

One of the principal decisions relied upon by the Supreme Court was Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704. In Murari Lal, the Court explained that while there is no absolute rule demanding corroboration of handwriting expert opinions, a court should exercise caution when such testimony is central to determining guilt. Specifically, the Court must scrutinize the reasons cited by the expert and evaluate them in light of additional evidence.

The Murari Lal precedent underscores two major points:

• An expert witness is not an accomplice, and so their testimony should not be automatically discredited or elevated to near-infallibility.
• Where a forensic field (like handwriting analysis) has recognized scope for human error, courts have to carefully examine the underlying data and reasoning, seeking corroboration as needed.

By drawing on Murari Lal, the Supreme Court in the present case refined the applicability of handwriting expert analysis, emphasizing the necessity of underlying original evidence to confirm the reliability of any expert opinion.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning hinged upon a strict interpretation of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly regarding primary versus secondary evidence. The Court observed that Section 64 of the Evidence Act indicates the principle that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in certain narrowly defined exceptions.

The prosecution attempted to rely on a photostat copy of the postal cover. However, secondary evidence is admissible only when primary evidence is not available for legitimate reasons (e.g., loss, destruction, or when in possession of an adverse party who refuses production). In this case, the Court found:

• There was no sufficient basis offered to show that the original cover could not be produced.
• The photostat copy could not be properly exhibited or verified, particularly owing to the appellant’s objections and the prosecution’s failure to satisfy foundational requirements for secondary evidence.
• Handwriting expert testimony, without the primary document to compare in court, constituted inadequate proof. Merely asserting that the expert had originally seen some cover does not circumvent the need to produce that cover or at least prove its unavailability under law.

Hence, the legal reasoning in this Judgment upholds the principle that a conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated secondary evidence — especially in a scenario where the authenticity of the handwriting is central to proving guilt.

Impact

The significance of this Judgment reverberates across criminal jurisprudence in India, particularly in cases involving allegations of forgery or similar offenses requiring scientific evidence. Its key impacts include:

• Heightened Burden of Proof for Forgery Cases: Investigative authorities and prosecutors must ensure that original documents are preserved, produced, and accurately tested. Reliance on secondary evidence must be properly justified if the original is unavailable.
• Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny of Expert Evidence: Rewarding caution in the judicial approach to handwriting experts, the Judgment highlights the necessity of corroboration unless the expert’s analysis is accompanied by solid, admissible evidence of the primary document in question.
• Directive for Lower Courts: Trial courts may now handle photostat evidence more strictly, thoroughly verifying the basis for its admission before allowing it to form the bedrock of a criminal conviction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Primary Evidence vs. Secondary Evidence: Primary evidence is the original document presented before the court. Secondary evidence can be copies or other substituted forms of proof used when the original is not available due to legitimate reasons. Courts require strict compliance with legal requirements before allowing secondary evidence to be admitted.

Handwriting Expert Testimony: This refers to an expert’s opinion on whether a specific writing matches samples provided by a suspect. Since handwriting analysis isn’t a perfectly exact science, courts prefer corroboration through primary documents or other evidence to reduce the risk of an incorrect finding.

Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: The prosecution must prove every element of the crime “beyond reasonable doubt.” If crucial evidence — like the original postal cover in a forgery allegation — is missing, this may shake the foundation of the prosecution’s case to the point of leaving reasonable doubt in the judge’s mind.

Conclusion

In C. Kamalakkannan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the crucial rule that the absence of primary documentary evidence can fundamentally undermine a prosecution’s case. Although a handwriting expert’s testimony can be compelling, it must be anchored by a duly admitted primary document or properly justified secondary evidence. The Court’s emphasis on strict adherence to evidentiary protocols ensures fair play within the criminal justice system, averting the risk of wrongful convictions based solely on potentially unreliable or unattested copies.

This Judgment thus serves as a strong precedent directing that, where forgery or fabrications are alleged, courts must pay keen attention to the nature of the evidence tendered, scrutinize the admission of copies or alternative forms of proof, and thoroughly assess the reliability of expert opinions. By acquitting the appellant in this matter, the Supreme Court underscores the principle that procedural safeguards and the evidentiary threshold are not simply formalities but vital to protecting the integrity of the law and the rights of accused persons.