Handwriting Expert's Opinion About Suicide Note Becomes Doubtful If IO Does Not Depose About Sourcing Admitted Writings Of Deceased: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the opinion of a Handwriting expert regarding a suicide note having been written by the deceased cannot be a conclusive proof if the person (Police), who sourced and handed over admitting writings of the deceased for examination, fails to disclose such fact in its evidence.

In one such case where the ASI failed to make a deposition qua his sending admitting writings to the Handwriting Expert concerned, the bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur observed,

"Only if the purported admitted handwriting of the deceased Satbir Singh, as became handed over by PW-6 to ASI Bir Singh, through memo Ex.PW-6/D, were the ones, as, became sent to the FSL concerned, thereupon, alone a conclusion may have been formed, but subject to the above made opinion, by this Court, that may be the apposite comparisons were validly made. However, for ensuring that this Court, does become led to make the above conclusion, as stated (supra), the investigating officer ASI Bir Singh was required to be making a deposition, qua his sending Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/C, to the Handwriting Expert concerned, but he has not made the above communication in his examination-in-chief.

Consequently, even if PW-20 in his examination-in-chief echoes, that Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/C, as, respectively embody thereins, the purported admitted writings of the deceased, did become received by him, at the FSL concerned, but yet since the source of their collection, is PW-19, and, who however does not make the above deposition, thereupon the inter-se comparisons as revealed by PW-20 in his examination-in-chief, to be made inter-se Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/C, with the dying declaration of the deceased, does become suspect, and/or, the source of theirs becoming purveyed to the Handwriting Expert concerned, does come under a cloud of suspicion."

A sequel of this would be that the Court would hold that the documents in question did not embody the purported admitted writings of the deceased and that the handwriting comparisons are frail and fragile.

The observation was made while acquitting a man who was convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide of complainant's father, on the basis of the suicide note.

The Court held that Handwriting Expert concerned cannot be imputed any credence since it appears that the investigating officer never transmitted admitting writings of deceased to the Expert.

In the above regard there is no cogent evidence, especially qua the purported admitted writings of the deceased carryings almost all the strokes, and/or, all the letters, as became carried in the dying declaration, as purportedly made by the deceased, and, the effect of the above, is that, the Handwriting Expert concerned, could never make apposite best comparisons inter-se the purported admitted writings of the deceased rather with the letters, and, strokes, as carried in the dying declaration, as, became purportedly authored by the deceased.

Apart from the report of the Handwriting Expert, the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased, was rested upon a deposition made by his son. The court noted that since acquittal of other co-accused persons has not been challenged before this Court, it acquires conclusive, and, binding effect.

Therefore, when a role similar to acquitted accused is attributed to the present appellant, then the present appellant too becomes entitled to a verdict of acquittal being made qua him, by this Court.

The court further noted that, it appears no instigation was ever given by the appellant rather the verdict of conviction and sentence of deceased under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act led to his committing suicide.

Since PW-19 in his cross-examination has stated, that deceased Satbir along with the appellant, Hari Shankar Sharma, and, one Tara Chand were convicted by the Court of Shri Manoj Jain, Special Judge, (PC Act) (CBI) South district, Saket District Courts, New Delhi, in respect of offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC, and, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, thereupon it appears, that the above verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence, as became imposed, upon the deceased rather led to his committing suicide, than the false attribution of instigations, as, made by the son of deceased qua the convict.

Therefore, the court made the following observations regarding the principles of law that emerge from the above discussion:

• The report of the Handwriting Expert concerned, enjoys evidentiary vigor only upon his being provenly purveyed by the investigating officer concerned.
• The admitted/standard apposite writings being provenly drawn rather contemporaneously to the drawings of the disputed writings by the deceased concerned, or by the person concerned.
• The source of the collections by the investigating officer concerned, qua the standard writings of the deceased concerned, is required to be unflinchingly proven, by the prosecution, then only it becomes efficaciously enabled to make the worthy apposite comparisons.
• The attributions of inculpations, in the purported dying declaration concerned and as appertaining to commission of suicide and appertaining to his becoming instigated, cannot per-se be believed, unless all the surrounding circumstances, and, evidence also suggests the same.

Resultantly, the court set aside the impugned verdict.