Case: State Vs. S.J. Choudhary

2. The respondentS. J. Chaudhary was being tried in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on charges punishable under Section 302, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983. The prosecution wanted to examine a typewriter expert for proof of certain incriminating facts against the respondent based on the identity of a typewriter on which a material document was alleged to have been typed. An objection was taken to the admissibility of the opinion evidence of the typewriter expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "Evidence Act") based on the decision of this Court in Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and the Trial Court upheld that objection. Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987 was filed in the Delhi High Court by the prosecution challenging that order. The Delhi High Court has dismissed the revision, hence this appeal by special leave.3. The present criminal appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising of two learned Judges of this Court. The correctness of the observations in Hanumants case by a Bench of three learned Judges on this point was doubted and reconsideration thereof was sought on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, by order dated March 22, 1990 the Division Bench took the view that this important question of law involved in this appeal should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. This question of law is the only point involved for decision in this appeal and the decision thereon would dispose of the appeal.

Court's reasoning:
6. In our opinion, irrespective of the view taken on the question of meaning of the word handwriting in Section 45 to include typewriting, the word science, occurring independently and in addition to the word handwriting in Section 45, is sufficient to indicate that the opinion of a person specially skilled in the use of typewriters and having the scientific knowledge of typewriters would be an expert in this science; and his opinion about the identity of typewriting for the purpose of identifying the particular typewriter on which the writing is typed is a relevant fact under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is obvious that the Indian Evidence Act when enacted originally in 1872 did not specifically mention typewriting in addition to handwriting because typewriters were then practically unknown. However, the expression science, or art in Section 45 in addition to the expressions foreign law and handwriting used in the Section as originally enacted, and the expression finger impressions inserted in 1899 is sufficient to indicate that the expression science, or art therein is of wide import. This expression science, or art cannot, therefore, have a narrow meaning in Section 45 and each of the words science and art has to be construed widely to include within its ambit the opinion of an expert in each branch of these subjects, whenever the Court has to form an opinion upon a point relating to any aspect of science or art.It is clear from the meaning of the word science that the skill or technique of the study of the peculiar features of a typewriter and the comparison of the disputed typewriting with the admitted typewriting on a particular typewriter to determine whether the disputed typewriting was done on the same typewriter is based on a scientific study of the two typewritings with reference to the peculiarities therein; and the opinion formed by an expert is based on recognised principles regulating the scientific study. The opinion so formed by a person having the requisite special skill in the subject is, therefore, the opinion of an expert in that branch of the science. Such an opinion is the opinion of an expert in a branch of science which is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.9. There cannot be any doubt that the opinion of an expert in typewritings about the questioned typed document being typed on a particular typewriter is based on a scientific study of the typewriting with reference to the significant peculiar features of a particular typewriter and the ultimate opinion of the expert is based on scientific grounds. The opinion of a typewriter expert is an opinion of a person specially skilled in that branch of the science with reference to which the Court has to form an opinion on the point involved for decision in the case. In our opinion, on a plain construction of Section 45 giving to the word science used therein its natural meaning, this conclusion is inevitable, and for supporting that conclusion, it is not necessary to rely on the further reason that the word handwriting in Section 45 would also include typewriting.It is, therefore, clear that the examination of typewriting and identification of the typewriter on which the questioned document was typed is based on a scientific study of certain significant features of the typewriter peculiar to a particular typewriter and its individuality which can be studied by an expert having professional skill in the subject and, therefore, his opinion on that point relates to an aspect in the field of science which falls within the ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such opinion evidence of experts in the field has long been treated as admissible evidence in similar jurisdictions like United States as is evident from these standard textbooks on the subject.18. In the present case, even without resort to the word handwriting in Section 45 to include typewriting therein, in the view we have taken, the word science is wide enough to meet the requirement of treating the opinion of a typewriter expert as an opinion evidence coming within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. We may, however, add that the long accepted practice of judicial construction which enabled the reading of the word telegraph to include telephone within the meaning of that word in Acts of 1863 and 1869 when telephone was not invented, would also be available in the present case to read typewriting within the meaning of word handwriting in the Act of 1872. This is so because what was understood by handwriting in 1872 must now in the present times after more than a century of the enactment of that provision, be necessarily understood to include typewriting as well, since typing has become more common than handwriting and this change is on account of the availability of typewriters and their common use much after the statute was enacted in 1872. This is an additional reason for us to hold that the opinion of the typewriter expert in this context is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.19. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the observations made in the above extract in the decision in Hanumant on the basis of a concession does not reflect the correct position of law on this point and should, therefore, be treated as no longer good law on the point.