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