Handwriting Expert Opinion Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Primary Evidence" – Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in Forgery Case

SC Acquits Man Convicted for Forged MBBS Marksheet, Cites Lack of Substantive Proof New Delhi, March 3, 2025 – The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of C. Kamalakkannan, who was accused of fabricating a forged marksheet for MBBS admission, holding that a handwriting expert’s opinion, without corroborating primary evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court noted that the original postal cover, which allegedly contained the forged document, was never produced or exhibited, making the prosecution’s case legally unsustainable.

Delivering the judgment, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that reliance on forensic opinion must be backed by substantive proof. “The evidentiary value of a handwriting expert’s report is rendered redundant if the primary document itself is not placed on record. Without proving the existence of the original postal cover, no conclusion could have been drawn that it bore the handwriting of the accused,” the Court observed.

The case stemmed from allegations that a candidate, Kumari Amudha, had submitted a forged marksheet inflating her actual score from 767/1200 to 1120/1200 for MBBS admission. A criminal case was registered, and the prosecution claimed that Kamalakkannan had prepared the postal cover used to send the forged document. The trial court convicted him in 2016, a decision later upheld by the appellate court and the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court, however, found fundamental flaws in the prosecution’s case.

Handwriting Expert’s Opinion Not Conclusive Without Primary Evidence

A key factor in the Supreme Court’s decision was the prosecution’s failure to produce the original postal cover, the very document that allegedly contained the forged marksheet. The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of a handwriting expert (PW-18) to establish Kamalakkannan’s involvement. However, the Supreme Court found this approach flawed.

“Handwriting comparison is not an exact science. While expert opinion is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, it must be corroborated by substantive evidence. In the present case, the reasoning sheet prepared by the expert was not placed on record, nor did he conclusively identify the disputed document,” the Court stated.

Citing Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, the Court reiterated that expert testimony “is not infallible and cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction”. It underscored that “corroboration is necessary, particularly when the alleged document is not exhibited or proved in accordance with law”.

Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Supreme Court was also critical of the prosecution’s handling of the case, observing that the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies entirely with the prosecution.

“The fundamental principle of criminal law is that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the primary document—the postal cover—was never exhibited. Without this foundational evidence, the case against the accused collapses,” the Court held.

The Court further noted that even the handwriting expert had not specifically identified the postal cover as the same one allegedly bearing Kamalakkannan’s handwriting. “If the prosecution itself has failed to prove the existence of the disputed document, then any conclusion drawn from it has no legal standing,” the bench remarked.

Supreme Court Acquits the Appellant, Sets Aside High Court Judgment

Concluding that the conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court.

“Since the postal cover was never proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting the prosecution’s claim that it bore the handwriting of the accused. The appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal,” the Court ruled.

The judgment reinforces the principle that criminal convictions cannot be sustained merely on forensic opinion without primary supporting evidence. The appeal was allowed, and Kamalakkannan was acquitted of all charges.