Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved