Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man accused of preparing a postal cover in which a forged marksheet, allegedly used by a co-accused girl for admission to MBBS in Tamil Nadu, was supposedly transmitted, upon finding that the original document was never produced or exhibited by the prosecution during its evidence before the trial court.

"We have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly posted. Since the postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting the prosecution theory that the same bore the handwriting of the accused appellant," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.

As a result, the court held, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court as well as the high court did not stand to scrutiny, and the appellant was entitled to a "clean acquittal".

Examining the appeal by C. Kamalakkannan, the bench said the highest case of the prosecution against him was that the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly transmitted bore his handwriting. This fact was sought to be proved through the testimony of the handwriting expert.

After going through the evidence of the handwriting expert, referred to in the trial court’s judgment, the bench found that the expert witness stated he had received three documents and a postal cover. Thus, even the handwriting expert did not identify the postal cover, which was the subject matter of examination, as being the same one which allegedly bore the handwriting of the accused appellant, the court said.

The trial court in the instant case had placed reliance on the testimony of the handwriting expert and the expert report to conclude that the handwriting on the postal cover was that of appellant C. Kamalakkannan, i.e., the second accused.

"To test the veracity of this finding, we have perused the material available on record and find that the trial court, in its judgment has noted that the postal cover which allegedly bore the handwriting of C. Kamalakkannan, the second accused (appellant herein) was not available on record and thus, the accused appellant had raised an objection against exhibiting the copy thereof," the bench said.

Consequently, the postal cover could not be exhibited in evidence. As the prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in the form of the original postal cover, the trial court could not have concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the handwriting on the disputed document was that of the accused appellant, the bench added.

"Non-exhibiting of the original document would lead to the only possible inference that the questioned document i.e., the postal cover was never proved as per law and as a consequence, the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report concluding that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused appellant is rendered redundant," the bench said.

The court pointed out that the locus classicus on this issue was Murari Lal vs. State of M.P. (1980), wherein the top court 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.

There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution, the court had then said.

The trial court, by its judgment dated October 25, 2016, convicted the appellant and the co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial, i.e., from October 22, 1996 to November 16, 1996, along with a total fine of Rs. 4,000. In appeal, the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, by its judgment dated October 23, 2017, affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court but reduced the fine amount to Rs. 600 on each count under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) of IPC.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, by its judgment dated April 16, 2019, rejected the revision petition filed by the appellant accused.

As per the prosecution case, the marksheet produced by one Kumari Amudha while applying for admission to the MBBS course was found to be fabricated. She had secured only 767 marks out of 1200, whereas the document i.e., the marksheet produced by her for admission portrayed the marks obtained to be 1120 out of 1200. A criminal case was registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant and the other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of IPC.

The appellant’s counsel submitted before the apex court that the trial court placed reliance on the deposition of the co-accused for convicting the accused-appellant, which tantamounted to a gross illegality. He further submitted that the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited by the prosecution during its evidence before the trial court. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial court that the accused-appellant had prepared the postal cover in his handwriting is ex facie illegal.

His counsel contended that the trial court committed a fundamental error while placing implicit reliance upon the report of the handwriting expert, the evidentiary value whereof had to be proved like any other document, because the comparison of handwriting was not a complete/conclusive science. He urged that the accused-appellant deserved to be acquitted of the charges by setting aside the impugned judgments.

The State counsel submitted that the original postal cover in which the forged marksheet had been forwarded could not be traced and thus, the prosecution was very much entitled to place reliance on the photostat copy of the said document by treating it to be admissible as secondary evidence.

The court finally allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments, and acquitted the appellant-accused.

Case Title: C Kamalakkannan Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Inspector of Police CBCID, Chennai