Case Name — Goverdhan v. State of Rajasthan
Date of Judgment — 3 November 2026
Citation — 2026 INSC 1190
Bench — Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Held. The Supreme Court held that where the prosecution relies on a handwriting expert’s report to prove authorship of a disputed document, it must examine the expert and afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine. The Court held that such a report cannot be relied on under Section 293 CrPC, corresponding to Section 329 BNSS, without examining the expert. The accused’s failure to specifically deny authorship in his statement under Section 313 CrPC did not discharge the prosecution’s burden of proof. Even assuming the appellant wrote the letters, their contents, read as a whole and in context, did not establish instigation within the meaning of Sections 107 and 306 IPC.
Summary. The prosecution alleged that four abusive and threatening letters sent by Goverdhan drove his estranged wife, Anju, to set herself on fire at her parental home. The trial court sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC, and the Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had neither proved that Goverdhan wrote the letters nor established a proximate link between the letters and Anju’s death. The letters combined threats and insults with requests to withdraw pending proceedings and resume cohabitation. The family’s failure to mention the alleged effect of the letters during the inquest and the unexplained delay of about 15 days in lodging the complaint further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Decision. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted Goverdhan of the charge under Section 306 IPC.