Handwriting expert reports need cross-examination when they form the main link to guilt, or the conviction may fail.

Where the prosecution relies on a handwriting expert's report as the principal link connecting an accused with the offence, the expert should ordinarily be examined so the accused can cross-examine him, unless the report is otherwise validly admitted in law. Reliance on an unproved report may improperly shift the burden to the accused and make the conviction unsafe if the report is the main incriminating material. Section 293(4)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits use of certain forensic reports, but the report still must be sufficient on the facts and evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether a handwriting expert's report could be relied upon without examining the expert and without affording the accused an opportunity to cross-examine him, when that report formed the principal basis for connecting the accused with the offence.

Analysis: The conviction rested on the handwriting expert's report linking the accused with the incriminating document. The report had not been formally proved by examining the expert, and there was nothing to show that the accused had admitted its contents. The Court held that once the prosecution chose to rely on the report, the expert ought to have been examined so that the accused could cross-examine him. Reliance on the report without such examination wrongly shifted the burden to the accused to disprove it. Although Section 293(4)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits reports of specified forensic experts to be used as evidence, the report in the present case did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt on its own.

Conclusion: The handwriting expert's report could not be safely relied upon in the manner adopted below, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution relies on a handwriting expert's report as the substantive link connecting an accused with the offence, the expert must ordinarily be made available for cross-examination unless the report is otherwise validly admitted in law; failure to do so may render the conviction unsafe if the report is the principal incriminating evidence.

---