|
|
|
|
|
|
GULZAR ALI V/S STATE OF H P 1998 S C C (Cri)605== Identity of handwriting. Modes of proof of handwriting indicated in sections 45 and 47 not exhaustive. Other external and internal circumstances also can be taken into consideration..The requirement of section 67 of Indian evidence act is only that the handwriting must be proved to be that of the person concerned . In order to prove the identity of the handwriting any mode not forbidden by law can be resorted to. The two modes indicated by law in sections 45 and 47 of the Indian evidence act. Section 45 permits expert opening to be regarded as relevant evidence and section 47 permits opinion of any person acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as relevant evidence. opinions of persons other than mentioned in the provisions would be irrelevant.so it cannot be said that the identity of handwriting of a document can be established only by resorting to one of those two sections there can be other modes through which identity of the handwriting can be established. EXPERT WITNESS--the observation that there is a natural Tendency on the part of an expert witness to support the view of the person who called him cannot be down staged, for, many so-called experts have been shown to be remunerated witnesses making themselves available on higher to pledge their oth in favour of the party paying them
TANVIBEN PANKAJ KUMAR DIVETIA V/S STATE OF GUJRAT = 1997 SCC (CRI) 1004 = = Conflict of opinion of two doctors -- opinion of the doctor who actually examined the injured or held post-mortem examination must be preferred to the expert opinion of the doctor who gave his opinion on duty on the basis of injury report, x-ray report, post-mortem report etc.
|
|
Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
|
