The Supreme Court (SC) reaffirms that basing a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert without substantial corroboration would be hazardous, in C. Kamalakkannan v State Of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 309].
In arriving at the conclusion, the SC relied on the judgement in Murari Lal S/o Ram Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [1980 AIR 531] wherein the SC earlier laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness, and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought.
In Murari Lal case, the SC says that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert.
The SC adds that the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses — the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises, or honest mistake of conclusion.
References
- Kamalakkannan v State Of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 309]
- Murari Lal S/o Ram Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [1980 AIR 531]
