C. KAMALAKKANNAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., CHENNAI

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 03-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 629 : 2025 INSC 309
C. Kamalakkannan 
v. 
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., 
Chennai
(Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2025)
03 March 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a handwriting expert’s testimony has to be corroborated; 
whether in the absence of primary evidence, i.e. the original postal 
cover, a copy of the document is admissible.
Headnotes†
Evidence law – Handwriting expert testimony – Whether to be 
corroborated – Murari Lal v. State of M.P. followed – No rule 
of law that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must 
never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated – But 
approach should be one of caution – Appellant convicted under 
Penal Code 1860, under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with 
Section 109 for preparing a postal cover in which a forged 
document was supposedly transmitted – Principal Sessions 
Judge affirmed judgment passed by trial court – Revision 
petition rejected by High Court vide impugned judgment:
Held: Reliance placed on Murari Lal v. State of M.P. – There 
can be no fixed rule as such that the opinion-evidence of a 
handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially 
corroborated – But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of 
the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should 
be one of caution – Probe the reasons for the opinion, consider 
all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. 
[Para 12]
Postal cover allegedly bearing handwriting of the Appellant 
not available on record – Prosecution failed to lead primary 
* Author
630
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
evidence – Trial Court could not have concluded that 
handwriting on disputed document was of the Appellant – 
Postal cover never proved as per law – Evidentiary value 
of handwriting expert rendered redundant – Conviction of 
Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed:
Held: Trial court relied on testimony of handwriting expert to 
conclude handwriting on postal cover was of the Appellant – 
However, Trial court noted that the postal cover which allegedly 
bore the handwriting of the Appellant was not available on 
record – Prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in form of 
the original postal cover – Trial court could not have concluded 
that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that the handwriting 
on the disputed document was that of the accused appellant –  
Non-exhibition of the original document will lead to the inference 
that the impugned document i.e., the postal cover, was never 
proved as per law – As a consequence, evidentiary value of the 
handwriting expert’s report concluding that the postal cover bore 
the handwriting of the accused appellant rendered redundant – 
Conviction of Appellant does not stand scrutiny – Appeal allowed – 
Appellant acquitted of all charges. [Para 13]
Case Law Cited
Murari Lal v. State of M.P [1980] 2 SCR 249 : (1980) 1 SCC 
704 – followed.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal code, 1860; Evidence 
Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Postal cover; Forged marksheet; Handwriting expert; Corroboration; 
Expert report; Evidentiary value.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1056 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2019 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras, in CRLRC No. 1601 of 2017
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
631
C. Kamalakkannan v. 
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, Ankur Prakash, Mrs. 
Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin 
Selvam, Alagiri K.
Advs. for the Respondent:
V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu 
Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Danish 
Saifi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave 
for assailing his conviction in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 on 
the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur1 for the offences 
punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) read with 
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
3.	
The trial Court vide judgment dated 25th October, 2016, convicted 
the appellant and the co-accused persons for the aforesaid 
offences. The accused appellant was sentenced to imprisonment 
already undergone as an undertrial i.e., fr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.