P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Koya Lalitha Kumari and Ors. v. Polina Nageswara Rao and Ors. - (High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh) (10 Apr 2015)

Document proved in Court as executed by a party does not require handwriting expert opinion

MANU/AP/0400/2015

Law of Evidence

Once a document is proved in the Court to have been executed, or a signature appended is proved to have been truly signed by the party concerned, it is not mandatory to obtain an opinion from a handwriting expert. The High Court noted that since the Petitioner was accused of changing the way in which she affixed her signature, nothing would be gained by the Court securing her signature and comparing it with the fraudulent ones found. It urged that courts must form their own independent opinions, after giving appropriate weight to the opinion of an expert.

Relevant : Budumuru Vijayanandh vs. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi MANU/AP/0449/2004 The State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors. MANU/SC/0134/1961

Tags : SIGNATURE   EXPERT   OPINION   MANDATORY   EVIDENCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved