9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Admissibility of handwriting expert opinion in evidence without examination of expert. 2. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after acquittal under Section 7. Admissibility of Handwriting Expert Opinion: The appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on the report of a handwriting expert linking him to the crime. The defense argued that the opinion of the handwriting expert should not have been relied upon without examining the expert in court. Reference was made to a previous case where the Supreme Court held that reliance on expert opinion without examination is not permissible. The trial court and the High Court did not allow cross-examination of the expert, which was deemed as a procedural error by the Supreme Court. Conviction under Section 13(1)(d) after Acquittal under Section 7: The case involved the appellant and others being charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the co-accused was acquitted, the appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(d). The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision based on evidence connecting the appellant to the crime through handwriting analysis. However, the Supreme Court held that since the appellant neither received the bribe money nor was present during the transaction, and the handwriting evidence was not conclusively proven, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 13(1)(d) was set aside, and he was ordered to be released if not wanted in any other case. Separate Judgement: The Supreme Court, in a separate judgement, emphasized the importance of proper examination and cross-examination of expert witnesses in criminal cases to ensure fair trial procedures and the right to defense.
|
