Section 72: Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved

Corresponding Evidence Act provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)Decided on Evidence Act section 73Taking specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3), and Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was obtained by compulsion.

Questions on this section

4 questions in 20 of our papers cite Section 72. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that directing an accused person to give specimen handwriting, signatures or finger impressions:

   A.does not by itself amount to compelling him to be a witness against himself under Article 20(3)B.violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution, so that such specimens are inadmissible in evidenceC.is permissible only if the accused is not in police custody when the direction is madeD.is permissible only with the prior leave of the High Court having jurisdiction
   Show answer

2. 2. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980), on the evidence of a handwriting expert, the Supreme Court held that:

   A.there is no rule of law that a handwriting expert's opinion must be substantially corroborated before it is acted uponB.the Court is bound to accept the opinion of a handwriting expert employed by the Government unless it is rebuttedC.the Court cannot itself compare a disputed handwriting with admitted handwriting without the aid of an expertD.as a rule of law, a conviction can never rest on handwriting expert evidence unless it is substantially corroborated
   Show answer