*C. Kamalakkannan V. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 SC)* 1. Facts: Accused sent the forged marksheet in a postal cover. The prosecution relied upon the Opinion of Handwriting Expert who deposed that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused. However, the original postal cover could not be traced and produced in the evidence. 2. ⁠SC acquitted the accused and held that “_an expert deposes and not decides_”. 3. The science of identification of handwriting is not so perfect, and the risk is higher. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. Having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed with caution. 4. In the present case, the prosecution failed to lead the primary evidence, in the form of the original postal cover. Non-exhibiting of the original document would lead to the only possible inference that the postal cover was never proved as per law, and hence, the evidentiary value of the handwriting expert’s report, concluding that the postal cover bore the handwriting of the accused is rendered redundant. 5. SC relied upon the _locus classicus_ on the evidentiary value of expert opinion i.e. *Murari Lal V. State of M.P. (1980 SC)*.