Supreme Court Acquitted Appellant Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence Regarding Handwriting on Postal Cover — Convictions Set Aside. Insufficient Proof of Disputed Document — Prosecution’s Failure to Exhibit Primary Evidence Led to Acquittal

Case Note & Summary

Failure to produce the original postal cover as primary evidence rendered the expert report inadmissible — Prosecution’s inability to prove the existence of the disputed document resulted in acquittal. Emphasized the principles laid down in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704 regarding the evidentiary weight of expert testimony and the necessity of corroboration in handwriting analysis (Paras 13–15)

Supreme Court allowed the appeal — Quashed judgments of Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court — Acquitted the appellant of all charges

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India (COI) — Article 136

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 120B, 468, 471, 109

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 45

Subjects:Acquittal — Expert Witness — Handwriting Analysis — Secondary Evidence — Postal Cover — Forged Marksheet — Burden of Proof

Nature of the Litigation:Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition challenging conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate and High Court

Remedy Sought:Appellant sought acquittal by challenging the conviction based on alleged lack of proper evidence

Reason for Filing the Case:The case was filed due to the appellant’s alleged involvement in the preparation of a postal cover transmitting a forged marksheet for MBBS admission

Previous Decisions:

Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur) convicted the appellant on 25th October, 2016 under IPC Sections 120B, 468, and 471 read with Section 109 — Imprisonment already undergone and fines imposed

Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, upheld the conviction on 23rd October, 2017 — Reduced fine amount on each count

High Court of Judicature at Madras rejected the revision petition on 16th April, 2019

Issues:

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the postal cover bearing the accused’s handwriting transmitted the forged marksheet

Whether the testimony and report of the handwriting expert without the original document could be relied upon

Submissions/Arguments:(a) Appellant’s Counsel: Argued that reliance on the co-accused’s deposition was illegal — Original postal cover was never produced — Handwriting expert’s report was inadmissible due to lack of primary evidence(b) Respondent’s Counsel: Contended that secondary evidence (photostat copy) was admissible — Handwriting expert’s report was sufficient