Handwriting expert evidence can be accepted without corroboration if reasons are sound and supporting evidence is reliable.

Handwriting expert opinion is admissible and need not invariably be corroborated before it can be relied on. The proper approach is to test the expert's reasons with caution, consider the surrounding evidence, and assess whether the opinion remains trustworthy. The Court may also compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings, because the Evidence Act expressly authorises such comparison. On the facts described, the unshaken expert evidence, judicial comparison of writings, and recovery of the deceased's watch at the appellant's instance were treated as sufficient to connect the appellant with the offences.

---

---

Issues: Whether the opinion of a handwriting expert must invariably be corroborated before it can be acted upon; and whether the disputed handwriting, together with the recovery of the deceased's watch, furnished sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Evidence Act make expert opinion on handwriting admissible, permit facts supporting or inconsistent with such opinion to be considered, and expressly empower the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings. The Court held that there is no rule of law, and no crystallised rule of prudence, requiring corroboration in every case before handwriting expert evidence can be accepted. The proper approach is to examine the reasons given by the expert with caution, consider the other evidence, and then decide whether the opinion is reliable. The Court also rejected the contention that judicial comparison of writings is impermissible, observing that the statute itself authorises such comparison. On the facts, the expert's reasons remained unshaken, both courts compared the writings and found them to be by the same person, and the recovery of the deceased's watch at the appellant's instance, when coupled with the handwriting evidence, was sufficient to connect the appellant with the offences.

Conclusion: Handwriting expert evidence need not invariably be corroborated, and the Court may compare writings itself; on the facts, the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained on the combined force of the handwriting evidence and the recovery of stolen property, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Expert opinion on handwriting is admissible and may be accepted without corroboration if its reasons are convincing and the accompanying evidence does not create doubt; the Court is itself empowered to compare disputed and admitted writings under the Evidence Act.

---