Scribd
Upload
37 views1 page

Admissibility of PW3's Testimony

This document summarizes the respondent's arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence in a forgery case. It argues that: 1) Based on Section 47 of the Evidence Act and case law, the witness PW3's statement identifying the handwriting is admissible, as she had experience handling documents signed by the accused over 7 years. 2) Case law also establishes that expert opinions are not mandatory to prove forgery. 3) Regarding PW3's previous statement, Sections 154-155 of the Evidence Act and case law indicate that prior statements of a hostile witness can still be admitted if their explanations are reasonable.

Uploaded by

Marvin Goshan
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views1 page

Admissibility of PW3's Testimony

This document summarizes the respondent's arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence in a forgery case. It argues that: 1) Based on Section 47 of the Evidence Act and case law, the witness PW3's statement identifying the handwriting is admissible, as she had experience handling documents signed by the accused over 7 years. 2) Case law also establishes that expert opinions are not mandatory to prove forgery. 3) Regarding PW3's previous statement, Sections 154-155 of the Evidence Act and case law indicate that prior statements of a hostile witness can still be admitted if their explanations are reasonable.

Uploaded by

Marvin Goshan
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

May it Please Your Lordship, I am, Kumuthini Segar, appearing as the co – counsel for the

respondent, Mr Jeremy, alongside with my lead counsel Ms Srimathi. I, as the Co- counsel,
will be submitting on the last propositions, where the statement given by PW3to the police
that she can recognize Amilano’s handwriting and the previous statement of (PW3) is
admissible as evidence.

If Your Lordship has no preliminary questions, we shall now proceed to submitting my


proposition.

Much obliged.

My Lord, with regards to the admissibility of the statement by (PW 3) to the police that she
can recognize Amilano’s handwriting, it can be referred to Section 47 of the Evidence Act
1950 and AmIslamic Bank Bhd v Naganthiren a/l Vijayakumaran The high court held that
the respondent aptly applies s 47 of the Evidence Act 1950 although SD2 did not see the
respondent affixed his signature personally, she had been in the ordinary course of business,
receiving documents purporting to be written or signed by the respondent being habitually
submitted to her.

My Lord, as per the case of Letchumanan Chettiar v Secure Plantation the Federal court
held that the proof of forgery case could be formed without the aid of expert opinion .This case
seems to have overturned the position in Syed Abu Bakar v PP. It is not mandatory to have the
expert opinion as in the case of Syed Abu Bakar v PP.

In pursuant to the current case, (PW3) who has been Amilano's assistant for almost 7 years. She
could recognise Amilano’s handwriting because due to the nature of her work ( assistant of
Amilano), she was able to obtain the handwriting of Amilano. Her opinion could admitted by
virtue of S47 of EA and also the recent decision of the Federal Court in the case of
Letchumanan Chettiar show that the admission of non-expert opinion in the case of forgery is
possible now even though there is nowhere of expert opinion to prove the handwriting or
signature.

If it pleases My Lordship , we will now proceed with the second point in the last propostion of
our submission that is the previous statement of (PW3) is admissible as evidence.

Much Obliged

My Lord, we would also like to bring the court's attention to Section 154 and S.155(c) of
Evidence Act 1950 and Referring to the case PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v TAN CHYE JOO
& ANOR Whether the testimony of the hostile witness should be rejected in whole or in part
depends on the result of the cross-examination. If the explanation of the witness is reasonable,
the court may not wholly reject his evidence.

In respect to the present case , PW3 was the hostile witness does not mean that the court must
reject her evidence wholly, the court will look into the result of the cross examination towards
PW 3, if she could explain reasonably. Therefoe, the learned Session court judge did not err in
law that accepted PW3 testimony after observing the cross examination towards PW3.

With Your Lordship’s permission, Respondents would now like to summarize the arguments
briefly. By looking at the current case facts, the evidence tendered as Exhibit P1 , PW2’s
opinion and the statement given by PW3 relates to Mr Amilano’s handwriting and the previous
statement of (PW3) can be admissible as evidence.

Much Obliged.

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Federal court's decision in Letchumanan Chettiar v. Secure Plantation plays a pivotal role in supporting non-expert evidence in forgery cases by overturning the precedent that necessitated expert opinion, as seen in the case of Syed Abu Bakar v. PP. This decision underscores that proof of forgery can be established without requiring expert testimony, thereby allowing courts to accept non-expert opinions, such as that of someone who regularly interacts with the alleged forged documents .

The legal rationale for the admissibility of statements from PW3 that may seem initially contradictory rests on the process of cross-examination resulting in reasonable explanations for these contradictions. The court uses the precedent set in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. TAN CHYE JOO & ANOR, where it was determined that testimony could be partially accepted based on its reliability and consistency vindicated through cross-examination. This allows courts to discern the credible elements of testimony potentially clouded by initial contradictions .

The implications of a court accepting the testimony of a witness deemed hostile are significant for determining the credibility and strength of the evidence. Accepting such testimony may influence the case outcomes by providing important insights or confirmations previously contradicted by the witness. Factors influencing this decision include the witness's ability to explain inconsistencies reasonably during cross-examination and whether their account still aligns with other evidence presented. The case law, particularly PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. TAN CHYE JOO & ANOR, shows that reasonableness in explanations plays a crucial role in the court's decision .

A witness's professional relationship with the subject significantly impacts the credibility of their testimony regarding handwriting recognition, as sustained interaction within a professional context can lend authority to their recognition claims. In the discussed case, PW3, having been Amilano's assistant for seven years, was deemed credible in recognizing his handwriting due to everyday exposure and familiarity. This aligns with legal standards under Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1950, emphasizing the practical experience over formal forensic analysis .

Expert opinion is not mandatory in proving handwriting authenticity according to current legal standards because courts recognize the sufficiency of a witness with substantial exposure to the handwriting, such as through regular business dealings. The case of Letchumanan Chettiar v. Secure Plantation supports this view, illustrating that the need for expert testimony is not absolute in forgery cases. The overarching legal position reflects a shift from the Syed Abu Bakar v. PP case, enabling more pragmatic litigation approaches .

Section 154 and S.155(c) of the Evidence Act 1950 affect the admissibility of previous witness statements by providing the legal framework under which prior statements can be scrutinized for consistency and credibility. These sections allow the cross-examination of a witness about previous inconsistent statements, and if the witness is hostile, as in the case discussed, their prior statements can still be evaluated for their reasonableness and admissibility based on cross-examination outcomes .

Past interaction with a person's handwriting holds significant legal weight in recognizing handwriting under Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1950. In the AmIslamic Bank case, the court acknowledged the reliability of recognition from an individual regularly handling the handwriting in business operations. This established that habitual exposure to and management of documents makes their non-expert opinion admissible, aligning with legal precedents that value practical familiarity over formal expertise .

The outcome of cross-examination can significantly influence the acceptance of testimony from a witness viewed as initially hostile by determining the coherence and reliability of their account. The case law in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. TAN CHYE JOO & ANOR provides that if the cross-examination enhances the credibility of the witness's explanation, then the testimony may be accepted wholly or partially. This legal stance emphasizes the role of cross-examination in transforming a hostile witness's testimony from suspect to substantial based on how well the testimony withstands scrutiny .

Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1950 supports the admissibility of a witness's recognition of handwriting by allowing for the acceptance of a non-expert opinion if the witness has familiarity with the handwriting in the ordinary course of business. In AmIslamic Bank Bhd v. Naganthiren a/l Vijayakumaran, the court held that observation of signatures in the routine business could suffice for recognition. Similarly, in Letchumanan Chettiar v. Secure Plantation, the court acknowledged that forgery could be proven without expert opinion, thereby supporting the admission of non-expert recognition of handwriting. These cases illustrate how Section 47 can apply to admit a witness's testimony in identifying handwriting .

The case of PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. TAN CHYE JOO & ANOR influences the treatment of testimony from a hostile witness by establishing the principle that a court is not required to entirely reject a hostile witness's testimony. The court must evaluate the credibility and reasonableness of the explanation provided during cross-examination. If a hostile witness's testimony holds up under scrutiny, parts of it may still be considered credible and admissible, guiding courts on how to assess and potentially accept such evidence .

You might also like