Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 41
Opinion as to handwriting and signature, when relevant
(1) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.—A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. Illustration. The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in Itanagar. B is a merchant in Bengaluru, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B's clerk whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.
(2) When the Court has to form an opinion as to the electronic signature of any person, the opinion of the Certifying Authority which has issued the Electronic Signature Certificate is a relevant fact.
Why this exists
Courts often need to verify authorship of documents — old letters, contracts, wills — where the writer isn't available to confirm it themselves. Rather than requiring direct proof, the law allows reliance on people who have enough familiarity with someone's handwriting through observation or regular business dealings. With the rise of digital documents, the law extended this logic to electronic signatures, trusting the technical expertise of Certifying Authorities who issue and verify such signatures.
How courts read it
Under the identical provision in the earlier Evidence Act (Section 47), courts held that familiarity with handwriting could arise from personal observation or habitual business dealings, not just formal introduction. Courts have cautioned that such opinion evidence is not conclusive proof and must be weighed alongside other evidence, especially where forgery is alleged. Comparison of signatures by court or expert (under separate provisions) is often used to corroborate or challenge such opinions.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Only someone who actually watched the person write can give an opinion on their handwriting.
Fact: The law also allows opinions from people who've regularly exchanged or handled that person's documents, even if they never saw them write. - Myth: A handwriting or signature opinion given under this section is final proof.
Fact: Courts treat such opinions as relevant evidence to be weighed with other proof, not as conclusive determination of authorship.