However, the reasoning given by Justice Thakur in paras 13-17 are difficult to decipher, to say the least. For instance, on perusing the handwriting expert’s report on the authenticity of the suicide note, he concluded,
“The sequel of the above lack of contemporaneity inter-se the drawings of the purported admitted writings by the deceased hence with the purported drawings of the suicide note, by him, is that, much scope was left for changes or variations occurring in the purported admitted writings of the deceased, since his purportedly scribing them, especially rather from the one(s), as, become carried in the suicide note to which Ex.PW-9/B is assigned. If so, the apposite comparisons were neither efficacious nor become amenable for any reliance being placed thereons.”
While stating (or at least we think) that the suicide note in this case did not have any evidentiary value, the order noted,
“The apt sequel is that, Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/C, did never embody thereins, rather the purported admitted writings of the deceased, with the consequent effect, that the apposite comparisons were completely frail, and, fragile, conspicously when even otherwise PW-20 has not spoken about the imperative factum of inter-se contemporaneity of the drawings of compared documents.”
Source: Barandbench
