The testimony of Ms Farsha (PW3) is inadmissible.

[1]The statement given by PW3 to the police that she can recognize Amilano’s handwriting is
inadmissible.

LAWS :

Section 45(1) of EA 1950 – provides the requirement that an expert must be specially skilled in either
four of these subject matters which are foreign law, science or art, matters involving identity or
genuineness of handwriting or fingerprint impressions. ·

PP v Mohd Kassim bin Yatim - The evidence available against the accused were two pieces of opinion
evidence on handwriting. The court held that it is not safe to rely on the opinion handwriting
evidence because it has been well remarked that many persons write alike. The court acquitted the
accused as the existence of such evidence alone was not enough and it carries a low weight or low
evidentiary value with it. ·

Syed Abu Bakar v PP – It is wrong for the court to decide authorship without expert’s aid. It is never
conclusive because it is only opinion evidence. ·

Lee Kim Luan v Lee Shiah Yee - The court held that the evidence adduced by a non-expert witness
pertaining to a person’s handwriting was not relevant as there was no evidence to show that he was
acquainted with the handwriting of that person. ·

Chu Choon Moi v Ngan Sew Tin - The court stated that it is not proper to attempt to conclude on the
genuineness of a signature of a document by comparing two similar handwriting without the opinion
of a handwriting expert who is specialised in that particular field.

APPLICATION : Referring to the subject matter of handwriting, it would not be justifiable for the court
to make a rule on handwriting without the assistance of an expert opinion on that matter. PW 3’s
evidence naturally carries zero to low weight since it is not safe to solely rely on the opinion evidence
on handwriting, what more from a non- expert. It is only proper to adduce an expert opinion in the
field of handwriting to conclude the genuineness of the handwriting in question.

(ii) Previous statement of Ms Farsha (PW3) cannot be used to prove the offence against Amilano
because of the clear prohibition against the admission of such statement and can be used by Defence
to impeach her credit as the evidence was completely untrustworthy.

LAWS : · A witness’s credibility will be impeached by impeachment proceedings when he turned

hostile.

Section 155 of Evidence Act 1950 - The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways
by the adverse party, or with the consent of the court and by the party who calls him by the evidence
of persons who testify that they from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of
credit.

Section 155(c) of the Evidence Act 1950 - The credit of a witness may be impeached by proof of
former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted. ·

Taylor J at Muthusamy v PP - Explained that if the witness has given one version of the incident to
the police and gives a different version to the Court, it becomes a question whether his evidence can
be relied on and therefore the former statement can be used to impeach his credit.
Baldev Singh & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - where the Himachal Pradesh High Court stated
that the statement of the hostile witnesses should be set aside entirely and should consider the
evidence to corroborate other evidence on record.

APPLICATION : The contradictory evidence in the trial made by PW3 was inconsistent with former
statements under s155(c) of the Evidence Act 1950 and her credit may be impeached by the Defence
as the evidence was completely untrustworthy. The former statement when compared with the
evidence given in court contained material inconsistencies, PW 3’s credit can be impeached and her
evidence becomes worthless because she has been shown to be unworthy of credit. Not only her
whole evidence will be disregarded, she is also liable to prosecution for perjury. Thus, the previous
statement cannot be used to prove the offence against Amilano because of the clear prohibition
against the admission of such statements in evidence. Besides that, since PW 3 has turned hostile;
the testimony of such a witness does not seem to be reliable in the court of law.