Forgery Conviction Cannot Be Sustained On Sole Testimony Of Person Claiming Familiarity With Accused's Handwriting: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing appeals challenging a conviction in corruption cases concerning the alleged falsification of records and misappropriation of Panchayat funds in Konnathadi Panchayat during 1993–94.

The appeal was filed by the former overseer of Munnar Grama Panchayat, who is the second accused in a corruption case where she was charged with creating false documents and forging measurement books and vouchers relating to the construction of a Homoeopathy Dispensary and a culvert in Konnathadi Panchayat. 

The trial court convicted the appellant, finding that the entries in the measurement book (M-Book) and vouchers were corrected by the appellant by relying on the testimony of her co-worker (PW4), which stated the entries were made in the handwriting of the appellant. 

The counsel for the appellant argued that the Investigating Officer did not collect the specimen or admit the handwriting of the appellant. It was further submitted that the Investigating officer did not obtain an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to establish that the handwriting belonged to the appellant.

The Court relied on Manmadhan v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC 937], which clarified that evidence regarding handwriting must satisfy one of three conditions under the Explanation to Section 47, which are:

1. The witness must have seen the person write, or
   
2. Received documents written by that person in response to one's own, or
   
3. Ordinarily received such documents in the course of business or duty.
   

The Court held that the testimony of the co-worker does not sufficiently prove that the handwriting in the document belongs to the appellant, as it is not in tune with the explanation in Section 47 of the Evidence Act. 

"In fact, no attempt was made by the Investigating Officer to prove the handwritings of the 2nd accused in the above documents by getting assistance of an expert....the evidence available as that of PW4, in no way, would sufficiently prove that handwritings in the above documents were that of the 2nd accused in tune with the Explanation to Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." the Court noted. 

Thus, the appeal was allowed, noting insufficient evidence to find the commission of the offences by the appellant. 

Case Title: V G Usha Devi v State of Kerala and connected matter

Case No: Crl. A 1685/ 2010 and connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 633

Counsel for Appellant: B Raman Pillai (Sr.), Anil K Muhamed, R Anil, T Anil Kumar, Joseph P Alex, Sujesh Menon V B, Shyam Aravind

Counsel for Respondent: Rajesh A, Rekha S

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment