[S.73 Evidence Act] Courts Can Compare & Verify Disputed Signatures With Admitted Evidence To Arrive At Conclusion Based On Other Supporting Evidence: Kerala HC

Justice G Girish relying upon various Apex Court decisions stated thus:

“Though it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely on the basis of the conclusions arrived by the court, by resorting to a comparison of the records on its own accord invoking Section 73 of the Evidence Act, in cases where there are other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions it is well within the ambit of power of the court to decide the case on the basis of the exercise undertaken by it in that regard as well.”

The petitioner's wife was a captain in the Indian Army who met with an unnatural death. The allegation against the petitioner was that he forged a succession certificate and documents to obtain the insurance amount and other benefits of the deceased wife.

The Magistrate had found the petitioner guilty under Sections 420(cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 466 (forgery of record of court or public register), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document), 475 (counterfeiting device or mark) of IPC and convicted him. The Sessions Court upheld the conviction and sentence, aggrieved by which he has preferred this revision petition before the High Court.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigating agency had not recovered and bought in as evidence the allegedly forged original succession certificate and original petition for the issuance of succession certificate. It stated that without recovery of allegedly forged certificates, the Sub Court had taken cognizance of the offense based on a complaint by the Army Insurance Department.

It was also contended that the prosecution had not adduced evidence to prove that the petitioner had allegedly submitted forged documents before the Army Insurance Department.

It was also argued that the appellate Court by relying upon Section 73 of the Evidence Act wrongly compared and admitted the signatures of the petitioner which were available on record with the disputed signatures on the photocopies of the alleged forged documents and arrived at the wrong conclusion that both signatures were the same.

The Court thus considered the ambit of Section 73 of the Evidence Act for comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and handwriting.

Relying upon Fakhruddin v. State of M.P (1967), it stated that the Court could apply its observation to verify and admit or prove disputed writings. It also referred to State of Gujarat v. Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Pathi (1967), to state that the Court could itself compare the writings to appreciate properly the other evidence produced before it.

Further, it relied upon Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Others (2003), to state that irrespective of the opinion of the handwriting experts, Courts could compare the admitted writings with disputed writings and come to its own independent conclusion.

It said that the Courts could rely upon expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for comparing disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence. 

It was observed that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, Courts could arrive at a conclusion based on their own observation of disputed signatures/handwritings with admitted evidence if there is other supporting evidence also pointing towards the conclusion arrived by the Court.

In the facts of the case, it was found that the petitioner was involved in the crime of forgery based on other independent evidence.

It was thus held that there was independent evidence proving that the petitioner had committed acts of forgery and attempted to commit cheating. It also added that even without a comparison of the admitted handwriting/signature, the involvement of the petitioner was brought out by the prosecution.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court and dismissed the revision petition.

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Advocates Pirappancode V Sreedharan Nair, Pirappancode V S Sudhir

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Maya N

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

Case title: Johny Kunnumpurath House V State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.REV.PET NO. 2296 OF 2005

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment