The Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature.

It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case.

The above-mentioned reasoning was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of C. J Reddy vs. B. P Reddy (through LRs), [Civil Appeal of 7818-7819 of 2009], pronounced on 27.08.2019.

Challenge:

Whether  the High Court main reliance upon the opinion evidence of  the handwriting expert, who opined that the signature of the defendant on the agreement of sale did not tally with his admitted signatures, was correct or not?

Held:

The Court in the present matter at the very first explained that mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. The Court analysed the issue in the matter by applying the ratio laid down in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court in the aforementioned precedence relied upon the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.

The  Court in the latter part of the judgement explained the importance of an opinion  of   ahandwriting expertt is a relevant fact under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Under Section 47 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed is also a relevant fact. As per the explanation to Section 47 of the Evidence Act, a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purported to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.

The Court before writing  the concluding paras considered it apposite to observe that the weight to be accorded to such an opinion depends on the extent of   familiarity   shown   by   the   witness   with   the   disputed handwriting. This, in turn, depends on the frequency with which the   witness   has   had   occasion   to   notice   and   observe   the handwriting, his own power of observation, and how recent such observations were.