In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted C. Kamalakkannan, accused of fabricating documents in a case involving the forgery of a mark sheet for MBBS admission, emphasizing that courts must exercise caution while relying on handwriting expert testimony due to the imperfect nature of handwriting identification science.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a criminal complaint registered in 1996 (FIR No. 2172 of 1996) after Kumari Amudha submitted a forged mark sheet for MBBS admission. Investigations revealed that the mark sheet portrayed her score as 1120 out of 1200, while her actual marks were 767 out of 1200. The prosecution alleged that the forged mark sheet was transmitted in a postal cover prepared by C. Kamalakkannan, who was later convicted by the trial court under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Legal Proceedings and Issues
Kamalakkannan was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur, in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial, along with a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2017, with a reduced fine. A further challenge before the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Criminal Revision Case No. 1601 of 2017) was also dismissed on April 16, 2019. Consequently, Kamalakkannan approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3044 of 2021.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the judgment (2025 INSC 309), acquitting the appellant on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover and that the handwriting expert’s testimony alone was insufficient to convict him.
The Court referred to the landmark decision in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, which stressed that expert testimony must be tested cautiously. The judgment noted:
“There is no rule of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon unless substantially corroborated. However, due to the imperfect nature of handwriting identification science, corroboration may be necessary in certain cases.”
The Supreme Court found that the original postal cover was never exhibited in evidence, and reliance on a photostat copy was legally unsustainable. Further, the handwriting expert’s report was not backed by the original reasoning sheet prepared during the forensic examination, making it inadmissible in evidence.
Observations by the Court
The Court underscored that an expert witness merely provides an opinion and does not decide the case. The judgment emphasized:
“An expert deposes and does not decide. The Court must proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, and consider all other relevant evidence before relying on expert testimony.”
Further, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the handwriting on the disputed postal cover was that of the accused. Since the primary evidence was not exhibited, the expert’s opinion lacked legal foundation.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions recorded by the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the pending applications were disposed of.
