In the present case, learned trial judge has adopted a view that conviction cannot be based only on the evidence of Handwriting Expert. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the matter of Magan Bihari Lai v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 SC 1091. The Apex Court has laid down in this matter that conviction cannot be solely based on the evidence of Handwriting Expert. learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has referred to subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court, taking a similar view in the matter i.e. of 5. Gopal Reddy v. State of A. P. (supra). Reference can also be made to the recent ruling of the Apex Court in the matter of Alamgir v. State (NCT Delhi) .
After referring to the earlier ruling reported in the matter of Magan Bihari Lai (supra), the Apex Court has observed in para No. 16 of the Report that the Handwriting Expert’s opinion simply corroborates the circumstantial evidence and as such we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions of Shri Singh on this score. The submission that conviction can be based on sole testimony of Handwriting Expert was fairly repelled. It is not necessary to multiple the case law on this point. The decision adverted to clearly lay down a law that conviction cannot be based on sole testimony of the Handwriting Expert.
The evidence of Handwriting Expert can corroborate the circumstantial evidence but it is imperative that the prosecution establish chain of circumstances showing that the delinquent is the culprit. Only in that case, the evidence of Handwriting Expert can be relied upon for substantiating other circumstantial evidence.