In a recent development, the Kerala High Court has made a significant observation regarding the interpretation of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The court stated that it could reach a conclusion based on its own examination of disputed signatures or handwriting against admitted evidence, provided there is additional corroborating evidence supporting the court’s conclusion.
This observation was made in the case of Johny Kunnumpurath House v. State of Kerala. The case involved the unnatural death of the wife of the revision petitioner, who served as a Captain in the Indian Army. The deceased’s mother and siblings accused the revision petitioner of causing her death. They further alleged that the petitioner attempted to misappropriate the insurance money and other benefits of his deceased wife by using a forged succession certificate.
The Trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and convicted him. The Additional Sessions Court upheld the conviction, confirming the verdict of the Trial Court. Dissatisfied with the concurrent verdicts, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Kerala High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the appellate Court had incorrectly compared and admitted the petitioner’s signatures, which were on record, with the disputed signatures on the photocopies of the alleged forged documents. They claimed that the court had erroneously concluded that both signatures were identical, relying on Section 73 of the IEA.
However, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Court. Justice G Girish noted that while it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely based on the court’s conclusions from a comparison of the records by invoking Section 73 of IEA, it is within the court’s power to decide the case based on such an exercise if there is other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions.
The court further examined the scope of Section 73 of IEA and concluded that courts could reach a conclusion based on their own examination of disputed signatures or handwriting against admitted evidence if there is additional corroborating evidence supporting the court’s conclusion.
Section 73 of IEA deals with the comparison of signature, writing, or seal with others admitted or proved. It empowers the court to compare writings with specimens or admitted documents. The section stipulates that the specimen document used for comparison must be an undisputed one, and all parties to the dispute must admit the specimen signature. This section also applies, with necessary modifications, to finger impressions.
