• Call Us+91 7388255933
  • Email Uslawgiconivisam@gmail.com
LaWGiCo
  • Home
  • Law Updates
    • PIL is not maintainable in service matters: Supreme Court
  • Publications
  • About Us
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
Login Register

Handwriting Expert Reports Are Inadmissible Under Section 293 CrPC Without Examining the Expert in Court; Letters Pleading Reconciliation Mixed with Threats Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC in the Absence of Proximate Instigation, Rules Supreme Court

Handwriting Expert Reports Are Inadmissible Under Section 293 CrPC Without Examining the Expert in Court; Letters Pleading Reconciliation Mixed with Threats Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC in the Absence of Proximate Instigation, Rules Supreme Court

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.

Click here to Read/Download the Order

If You Need Any Help Contact LaWGiCo

+91 7388255933

Contact us today!

image

Whether you’re a litigant, a legal counsel, or a corporation — LaWGiCo bridges the gap between law and accessibility.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Law Updates
  • Contact Us

Resources

  • About us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Contact us

268 GR FLR HIMSHIKHA COLONY PANCHKULA C.R.P.F. Pinjore Panchkula Haryana India 134104

+91 7388255933

lawgiconivisam@gmail.com

Open Time

Opening Day:
Monday - Friday: 8am to 6pm
Saturday: 9am to 5pm

Vacation:
All Sunday's

Copyright © 2025 LaWGiCo | All Rights Reserved