‘Fake’ encounter cases: Signatures on seized documents match with Tulsiram’s signatures

According to Sohrabuddin’s younger brothers, Rubabuddin and Shahnawazuddin, a few months before his alleged encounter in December 2006, Tulsiram had handed over six blank papers to them, directing them to write to various authorities about the alleged threat to his life.

Written by Sadaf Modak | Mumbai | Updated: August 10, 2018 4:17:52 am
sohrabuddin fake encounter case, prajapati fake encounter case, bombay high court, special court shorabuddin case, sohrabudding case hearing, latest news, indian express On Thursday, an official from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) deposed before the court on the analysis he had done of the handwriting on the seized documents sent to him by the investigators.

In the alleged fake encounter cases of Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati, a handwriting expert told the court on Thursday that the signatures of Tulsiram on the history sheets in prison matched with those on the blank papers in possession of two of Sohrabuddin’s brothers. According to Sohrabuddin’s younger brothers, Rubabuddin and Shahnawazuddin, a few months before his alleged encounter in December 2006, Tulsiram had handed over six blank papers to them, directing them to write to various authorities about the alleged threat to his life.

On Thursday, an official from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) deposed before the court on the analysis he had done of the handwriting on the seized documents sent to him by the investigators. For analysis of Tulsiram’s handwriting, the expert was given a copy of two pages of history sheets from Udaipur central prison where he was lodged. While Tulsiram could not read or write, witnesses so far have claimed that he could sign his name. The expert told the court that he compared that with the signatures sent to him made on six blank pages.

“…After the analysis, it can be said that the exhibits are written by the same person,” the expert told the court. His analysis report, which the witness identified before the court, had said the similarities in the exhibits ‘will not accidentally co-incide in the writing habits of two different persons’ and that when considered collectively they lead to a ‘common authorship’.

During cross-examination, the defence advocates asked the expert about the differences in the specimens, including a darker line in one of them as well as a different curve in the Devanagari script. The witness, however, said they are ‘natural variations’.

Start your day the best way
with the Express Morning Briefing

For all the latest Mumbai News, download Indian Express App