- Case
- C. KAMALAKKANNAN v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Supreme Court of India, 03-03-2025)
- Law
- Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act.
Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment discusses Sections 120B, 468, and 471 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under these sections. The trial court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the count of Section 120B IPC, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the count of Section 468 IPC, and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the two counts of Section 471 IPC. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but reduced the fine amount to Rs. 600/- on each count of Sections 120B, 468, and 471. The judgment revolves around the validity of this conviction, specifically focusing on the evidence presented to prove the offences under these sections, particularly the forgery and conspiracy aspects.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The judgment refers to Section 45 of the Evidence Act concerning expert testimony, specifically regarding handwriting experts. The court discusses the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of a handwriting expert. It cites Murari Lal v. State of M.P., emphasizing that while corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon, the approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be cautious. The court notes that the opinion of the expert has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. The judgment also touches upon the admissibility of secondary evidence, noting that the prosecution sought to rely on a photostat copy of a postal cover as secondary evidence because the original could not be traced. The court ultimately finds that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the disputed postal cover, impacting the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert's report.
