Presentation on FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINATION.ppt
- 2. DOCUMENTS This is the age of documents. In spite of the fact that paperless documents are already in use, paper documents would continue to dominate in all human transactions for many more centuries
- 3. Identification of authorship of writing including signatures; Physical and chemical examination including study and identification of 1) writing materials 2) erasures, obliterations & alterations 3) order and age of writing or typing
- 4. The characteristics of writing are determined by 1. The system of writing originally learnt 2. The experience and conditions of use of the hand over a period of time. 3. The presence or absence of physical abnormalities or defects originating from illness, injury, psychological variations etc.
- 5. All the Aforesaid Factors Contribute to the Development of the One Determining Factor-the Nerve, Muscle, Mind Reaction Pattern or Conditioned Reflex Pattern of the Writer
- 6. Characteristics of a writing • The writing instruments, paper etc • The position of the writer- sitting, standing, lying, arms high or low • Temporary physical or psychological disturbances - excitement, fear, pain, exhaustion, injury to the hands, poor eye sight etc. • Other temporary variables – writing, in darkness or without glasses or in bad lighting
- 7. WRITING CHARACTERISTICS Style system Skill Alignment Terminals Spacing Shading Individual letter characteristics Size/ relative size Slant / relative slant Line quality Speed
- 8. FORGERY Free hand forgery Free hand with distinct disguise with little or no effort to simulate Simulated forgery (drawn varieties) Traced forgery 1) using carbon paper and sharp instrument 2) using tracing paper 3) using transparent light 4) using photocopy and sharp instrument
- 9. Tampering originals Addition Alteration Obliteration Erasures Chemical erasure Mechanical erasure
- 11. SIGNATURE FORGERIES The signature is a specialized form of handwriting One SIGNS his name in this specialized form of writing which will differ from his WRITING his name in the normal way. Because of frequent use, it becomes almost an automatic writing, reproducing a particular pattern, distinguishing one’s signature from the signatures of all the others.
- 13. SINGAPORE SUPREME COURT CASE Anbu, a business man of Singapore deposited one million dollars in Indian Overseas Bank in the name his fiancee living in England. For this purpose he sent the signature specimen card to England. The card contained two columns, one for specimen signatures and another for verification signatures. The fiancee signed four signatures in both the columns. History of the case
- 14. The verification signatures should be executed later when clients visit the bank. The bank ignored this aspect and opened the account. Anbu married his fiancee. A child was born. Anbu got the deposit transferred to his account through a letter handwritten by him and signed by his wife. Estrangement and divorce. Wife returned to London.
- 15. She wrote to the Singapore bank to transfer the million dollars with interest to her London account, alleging that her signature in the mandatory letter was forged by Anbu . Police cases were filed in London and Singapore. The forensic expert from London opined that signature in the mandatory letter was forged and that the verification signatures were also forged with the connivance of the Bank
- 16. The Singapore expert opined that the mandatory signature as well as the verification signatures are genuine. But during cross examination was shaky about verification signatures for a fifty-fifty chance. The Bank’s expert from Hongkong opined the same way but changed his opinion in respect of verification signatures. Chandra Sekharan appeared as a fourth expert, studied several earlier signatures from court documents, passport and school certificates and found use of human behavior science in addition to handwriting science is necessary in this case.
- 23. OF
- 24. From passport
- 25. See the difference in hue of ink
- 26. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE Suit No 1595 of 1990 Coram : The Honourable Justice GOH JOON SENG S.Rai for the plaintiff Michelle Rasanayagam for the 1st Defendant K.S.Chung for the 2nd Defendant R.Karuppan Chettiar(with S.Lalitha) for Third Party
- 27. Extract from the Judgement “In any case it was my finding in the forgery suit that the letter of 23rd November 1989 referred to in that suit as the ‘mandate’ was signed by the second defendant. My finding there is supported by the evidence of Professor Sekharan, a document examiner, identifying for the third party in the trust suit. Professor Sekharan’s views were robustly challenged by the second defendant through Mr. Robert Radley, a document examiner, who had also testified for the second defendant in the forgery suit. The additional evidence given by Mr. Radley has not shaken the finding I reached in the forgery suit.”