C. Kamalakkannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). 3044 of 2021)

C. KAMALAKKANNAN …….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2025.03.03 18:44:52 IST Reason: 1

2. The appellant herein has preferred the instant

appeal by special leave for assailing his conviction in

Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur1 for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2

counts) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal

Code, 18602.

3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 25th October,

2016, convicted the appellant and the co-accused

persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused

appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already

undergone as an undertrial i.e., from 22 nd October,

1996 to 16th November, 1996 along with fine of

Rs.1,000/- on the count of Section 120B IPC; fine of

1 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’. 2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’.

2 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 Rs.1,000/- on the count of Section 468 IPC and a fine

of Rs.2,000/- on the 2 counts of Section 471 IPC. In

case of a default, the accused appellant was directed to

undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

4. In appeal3, the Principal Sessions Judge,

Thiruvallur4, vide judgment dated 23rd October, 2017

affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court but

reduced the fine amount to Rs.600/- on each count of

Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) of IPC. In case

of a default, the accused appellant was directed to

undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

5. The revision petition5 preferred by the accused

appellant also stands rejected by the High Court of

Judicature at Madras6 vide judgment dated 16th April, 3 Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2017.

4 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘appellate Court’. 5 Criminal Revision Case No. 1601 of 2017. 6 Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’.

3 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in this

appeal by special leave.

6. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the

marksheet produced by one Kumari Amudha while

applying for admission in the MBBS course, was found

to be fabricated. She had secured only 767 marks out

of 1200 marks whereas the document i.e., the

marksheet produced by her, for admission to the

MBBS course portrayed the marks obtained by her to

be 1120 out of 1200 marks. A criminal case 7 came to

be registered and after investigation, 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. As mentioned

above, the trial resulted in the conviction of the

7 FIR being Crime No. 2172 of 1996.

4 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 accused appellant and the appeal and revision petition

preferred by him were also dismissed. Hence this

appeal by special leave.

7. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel

representing the accused appellant urged that the only

allegation of the prosecution against the appellant is

that he prepared the postal cover in which the forged

marksheet was supposedly transmitted. He urged that

the trial Court placed reliance on the deposition of the

co-accused for convicting the accused appellant which

tantamounts to a gross illegality. He further submitted

that the original postal cover was never produced and

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 as

5 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 the said fact was not proved by leading proper

evidence. He further contended that the only evidence,

based upon which the Courts below have recorded the

guilt of the accused appellant is that of the

handwriting expert (PW-18). Learned senior counsel

urged that the reasoning sheet prepared by the

handwriting expert (PW-18) during the course of

scientific examination of the disputed documents was

not brought on record and proved by the handwriting

expert while testifying on oath and thus, the report of

the handwriting expert (PW-18) is inadmissible in

evidence.

8. Shri S. Nagamuthu further submitted that the

trial Court committed a fundamental error while

placing implicit reliance upon the report of the

handwriting expert (PW-18), the evidentiary value

6 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 whereof, has to be proved like any other document

because the comparison of handwriting is not a

complete/conclusive science. He thus, urged that the

accused appellant deserves to be acquitted of the

charges by setting aside the impugned judgments.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

State, vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He

urged that the contention of the appellant’s counsel

that the trial Court placed reliance on the testimony of

Vijaya Kumar (PW-9), being the father of the girl i.e.,

Kumari Amudha, whose marksheet was forged, is

misplaced because the said Vijaya Kumar (PW-9) was

initially a listed witness of the prosecution, but after

recording his deposition as a witness, the trial Court

summoned him to face trial and there is a categoric

7 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 finding in the trial Court’s judgment that the evidence

of Vijaya Kumar (PW-9) is not acceptable. He further

submitted that the original postal cover in which the

forged marksheet had been forwarded could not be

traced out 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.

10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at the bar and have gone

through the material available on record.

11. At the outset, it may be noted that the highest

case of the prosecution as against the accused

appellant is that the postal cover in which the forged

marksheet was purportedly transmitted, bore his

8 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 handwriting. This fact was sought to be proved

through the testimony of the handwriting expert (PW-

18).

12. The locus classicus on this issue is Murari Lal v.

State of M.P.8, wherein this 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. The relevant paragraphs are extracted

hereinbelow:-

“4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in Criminal Courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said

8 (1980) 1 SCC 704.

9 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, 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. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. [..]

6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant fact……… So, corroboration may not invariably be

10 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it.

11. We are firmly of the opinion that 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, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.” (emphasis supplied)

11 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021

13. The trial Court in the instant case, placed

reliance on the testimony of the handwriting expert

(PW-18) and the expert report (Exhibit A-31) to

conclude that the handwriting on the postal cover was

that of C. Kamalakkannan i.e., the second accused

(appellant herein). 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.

Consequently, the postal cover could not be exhibited

in evidence. As the prosecution failed to lead primary

evidence, in form of the original postal cover, the trial

12 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 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.

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.

14. Furthermore, on going through the evidence of

the handwriting expert (PW-18), as referred to in the

trial Court’s judgment, we find that the expert witness

stated that he received the documents as Exhibit A-2,

Exhibit A-14 and Exhibit A-15 and a postal cover.

Thus, even the handwriting expert (PW-18) did not

13 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021 identify the postal cover, which was the subject matter

of examination, as being the same which allegedly bore

the handwriting of the accused appellant.

15. In wake of the above discussion, 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. As a result,

the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial

Court and affirmed by the appellate Court as well as

the High Court does not stand to scrutiny and the

appellant is entitled to a clean acquittal.

14 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021

16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned

judgments, dated 25th October, 2016 passed by the

trial Court, dated 23rd October, 2017 passed by the

appellate Court and dated 16th April, 2019 passed by

the High Court, are hereby quashed and set aside.

17. The appellant is acquitted of the charges.

18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

….……………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 03, 2025.

15 Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3044 of 2021