Cases that can be discussed along with relevant crime detection method:
Landmark cases:
1. Kotkhai Gang rape case, Shimla 2018
2. Nirbhaya Murder Case , 2012
3. Jessica Lal Murder Case, 1999
4. Noida Double Murder Case, 2008
5. Sheena Bora Murder Case, 2012
6. In the case of Devi Prasad v. State (AIR 1967 All 64, 1967 CriLJ
134), the Court held that evidence given by a person who has
insufficient familiarity should be discarded. Indian Evidence Act
insists that documents either be proved by primary evidence or by
secondary evidence. The opinion of an expert in handwriting should
be received with great care and caution and should not be relied
upon unless corroborated as it has been held in the case of Punjab
National Bank Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank of India Ltd (1911) 13
BOMLR 835, 12 Ind Cas 257) [Handwriting]
7. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1956 SC 415, 1956 CriLJ
805 ) - The validity of the scientific method used for fingerprinting
and foot printing is accepted by the Courts.
8. Mohd. Aman v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 2960) : The
finger prints and footprints found at the scene of offence can be
used to help identify the offender and also the victim. As far as
science of identification of foot prints are concerned, the court has
held that it is not a well-established fully developed science.
9. The Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal
(1993 AIR 2295, 1993 SCR (3) 917 ) laid down guidelines governing
the power of courts to order blood tests.
10. In the case of Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr
(2012) 12 SCC 554), wherein, the issue of paternity was concerned
and the Delhi High Court ordered the respondent to undergo a DNA
test, as the petitioner was able to produce DNA evidence which
excluded the possibility that his legal father was his biological father
and the judgment of the High Court was upheld in the Apex Court.
11. Tracker Dog Evidence: In Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar v.
State of Maharashtra (AIR 1970 SC 283 )- It has been observed
that in India we have yet to accept the evidence of tracker dog as a
substantive piece of evidence.
12. The same was reiterated in another case Ramla v. State(1963
CriLJ 387) where it was held that evidence of tracker dog was of
little importance.
13. Typewriter Evidence: In State v. S.J. Choudhary (984 AIR
618, 1984 SCR (2) 438), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
word 'science' is wide enough to meet the requirement of treating
the opinion of a typewriter expert as admissible evidence.
14. Polygraph, Brain-Mapping and Lie Detection: Generally
stating, the Courts may refuse to admit the results of a polygraph
test as evidence.The Supreme Court of India with regard to these
tests has held in Selvi v. State of Karnataka(Criminal Appeal 1267
of; 2004 2010(7) SCC 263), that it expressly invoked the right of
privacy to hold these technologies unconstitutional. The court held
that such techniques invaded the accused’s mental privacy which
was an integral aspect of their personal liberty. The Supreme Court
after a thorough examination of the issue, directed that - “no
individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in
question, whether in the context of investigation in a criminal case
or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion
into personal liberty.”
15. Ballistic Evidence: In case of Ballistic experts (Bullet marks),
their opinion cannot be rejected merely on the basis, that expert has
not taken the photographs of the cartridges. In S.G. Gundegowda v.
State (1996 CriLJ 852, ILR 1995 KAR 3525), the report of the
ballistic expert was considered as admissible without calling him as
a witness. In Rachhpal Singh v. State of Punjab(2012), it was held
that in cases where injuries are caused by fire arms, the opinion of
ballistic experts play a lot of importance and failure to produce the
expert opinion before the trial court effects the credit worthiness.
16. In Mahmood v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 All 538) the court held
that it is highly unsafe to convict a person on the sole testimony of
an expert. Substantial corroboration is required. Thereby, it is very
evident that conviction cannot be granted only on the basis of
forensic report of an expert.
17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde (1999),
the Supreme Court has held that without examining the expert as a
witness in the court, no reliance can be placed on expert evidence.
18. In Malappa Sidappa Alakumar v. State of Karnataka(2002), if
there is a conflict between medical and ocular evidence, than ocular
evidence shall be preferred over the medical evidence, in case ocular
evidence is acceptable, trustworthy and reliable.
Case name: Sheila Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj
Date of Judgment: May 11, 2018
In the case at hand, the complainant alleged that accused no. 1 with the aid
of an imposter who by impersonating as Mrs. Doris Victor (the owner of
impugned property) created a Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘PoA’) in his
name as if he was her agent. It was further alleged that, using the aforesaid
PoA the accused no. 1, attempted to transfer the property of complainant by
executing a mortgage deed in favour of accused no. 2.
After getting the information about the aforesaid transaction, the owner of
the property Mrs. Doris Victor registered FIR against accused for cheating.
The Trial Court convicted both accused and accused no. 2 was convicted for
offence under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code (punishment for forgery).
However, the High Court in appeal acquitted the accused no. 1 and 2
holding that no case was made out under Section 465 of Indian Penal
Code or for offence under Section 420 of IPC (cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property) being a consequential one, equally cannot be
sustained.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of High Court, the appellant in this
case approached the Supreme Court. The Appellant contended that the High
Court incorrectly interpreted Section 464 of IPC which mandates that
anyone who makes a false document is guilty of forgery.
Bench’s Verdict
The Supreme Court in the case upheld the High Court’s order and made the
following observations:
That a close scrutiny of the provisions makes it clear that, Section
463 defines the offence of forgery, while Section 464 of
IPC substantiates the same by providing an answer as to when a
false document could be said to have been made for the purpose of
committing an offence of forgery under Section 463. That Section
464 of IPC defines one of the ingredients of forgery i.e. making of a
false document. Further, Section 465 of Indian Penal Code provides
punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery.
That in order to sustain a conviction under Section 465 of Indian
Penal Code, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed
under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 of
IPC should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients
under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted
under Section 465 of Indian Penal Code by solely relying on the
ingredients of Section 464 of IPC, as the offence of forgery would
remain incomplete.
The Supreme Court in the case also quoted Collin J. in Dickins v.
Gill, (1896) 2 QB 310, a case dealing with the possession and
making of fictitious stamp wherein he stated that “to make”, in itself
involves conscious act on the part of the maker. Therefore, an offence
of forgery cannot lie against a person who has not created it or
signed it.
For Conviction u/Section 465 of Indian Penal Code False
Document shall be made with the intention – The Supreme
Court made reference to its judgment in the case of Ibrahim and
Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr.[1] wherein it was held that
there is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale
deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a
person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely
claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute
the deed on owner’s behalf.
That to fall under category of `false documents’, it is not sufficient
that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or
fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have
been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such
document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a
person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not
made or executed.
That when a document is executed by a person claiming a property
which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is
he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore,
execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of
which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as
defined under Section 464 of IPCof the Code. If what is executed is
not a false document, there is no forgery
That a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not
the maker of the same. That making of a document is different than
causing it to be made. As Explanation 2 to Section 464 of IPC
further clarifies that, for constituting an offence under Section
464 it is imperative that a false document is made and the
accused person is the maker of the same, otherwise the
accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
Forgery and False Document- The definition of “false document”
is a part of the definition of “forgery”. Both must be read together.
‘Forgery’ and ‘Fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence which
could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn
from proved facts.
With reference to the facts of the instant case, the Court stated that
there was no finding recorded by the trial Court that the
respondents have made any false document or part of the
document/record to execute mortgage deed under the guise of that
‘false document’.
In view of the aforesaid, the Apex Court inferred Section 464 of the IPC
makes it clear that only the one who makes a false document can be
held liable under the aforesaid provision. It must be borne in mind that,
where there exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation.
