Indian Evidence Law – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023-Proof of Signature and Handwriting of a Person Alleged to Have Signed or Written a Document Section 65
1. Introduction
Section 65 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 lays down the rule regarding the proof of signature and handwriting when a document is alleged to have been signed or written, wholly or partially, by a particular person. The section embodies the fundamental evidentiary principle that authorship of a document must be established before its contents can be relied upon by the Court.

2. Statutory Rule under Section 65
According to Section 65:

• Where a document is alleged to be signed or written by any person,
• The signature or handwriting attributed to that person must be proved to be genuinely his.

Thus, mere production of a document is not sufficient. The party relying on the document must establish that the signature or handwriting appearing on it is that of the person concerned.

3. Scope and Application of the Section
This section primarily applies to documents not required by law to be attested. In such cases:

• The execution of the document can be proved by any competent witness who saw the person signing or writing the document.
• This may include the scribe, an attesting witness, or any other literate person who was present at the time of execution.

Importantly, Section 65 does not prescribe a single rigid method for proving handwriting or signatures. Instead, it allows flexibility, permitting any legally acceptable method of proof, provided it does not violate the best evidence rule.

4. Modes of Proving Handwriting and Signature
The handwriting or signature of a person may be proved through several recognized methods, including:

1. Direct evidence of the writer himself, where the person admits authorship.
2. Expert evidence, by comparing the disputed handwriting or signature with admitted or proved samples (Section 39).
3. Evidence of a person acquainted with the handwriting of the alleged writer, such as a colleague or family member (Section 41).
4. Testimony of a person who saw the document being written or signed, such as the scribe or a witness present at execution.
5. Comparison by the Court itself of the disputed writing or signature with admitted or proved samples under Section 72.

These modes are alternative and cumulative, and the law does not mandate the adoption of any one particular method.

5. Proof of Authorship of Different Types of Documents

• In the case of letters, it must be proved who wrote and signed the letter.
• For diaries, notebooks, or private records, authorship must be established by showing that the document belongs to and was written by the alleged person.
• Mere possession of such documents is insufficient without proof of authorship.

6. Marking of Documents as Exhibits and Its Legal Effect
Judicial decisions have clarified that marking a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of its contents.

• In Narbada Devi Gupta v. Varender Kumar Jaiswal, the Supreme Court held that merely exhibiting a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving its execution and contents.
• Similarly, in LIC of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, it was held that admission of a document only amounts to admission of its existence, not the truth of its contents.

Therefore, a document must be proved either by primary evidence or admissible secondary evidence, in accordance with law.

7. Objections as to Admissibility and Mode of Proof
​In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami Temple, the Supreme Court clarified that:

• An objection relating to the admissibility of a document can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even after it has been marked as an exhibit.
• However, objections regarding the mode of proof must be raised at the time the document is tendered in evidence. Failure to do so may result in waiver of such objection.

8. Conclusion
Section 65 reinforces the principle that documents do not prove themselves. When a document is alleged to have been signed or written by a particular person, its authenticity must be established through legally recognized modes of proof. Mere production or exhibition of a document is insufficient. The provision ensures reliability, prevents fabrication, and upholds the integrity of documentary evidence in judicial proceedings.