1996 (2) TMI 535 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of typewriter expert opinion u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Typewriter Expert Opinion u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
The Supreme Court addressed whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent was tried for charges u/s 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution sought to use a typewriter expert's opinion to prove certain incriminating facts. The Trial Court and the Delhi High Court had previously ruled such evidence inadmissible, relying on the precedent set in Hanumant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which was based on a concession that typewriter expert evidence did not fall within the ambit of Section 45.

The Supreme Court examined the plain meaning of Section 45, which includes opinions on foreign law, science, art, identity of handwriting, or finger impressions as relevant facts. The Court concluded that the term "science" in Section 45 is broad enough to encompass the expertise of a typewriter expert. The Court noted that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, being an ongoing Act, should be interpreted to include advancements in technology, such as typewriting, which were not prevalent at the time of its enactment.

The Court referenced various authoritative texts and dictionaries to affirm that the identification of typewriting is based on scientific principles similar to those used in handwriting identification. The Court also cited the practice of judicial construction, which allows for the inclusion of new technologies within the scope of existing legal terms, as seen in the historical inclusion of "telephone" within the meaning of "telegraph."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The previous observations in Hanumant were deemed incorrect and no longer good law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside.