The courts have expressed a cautious approach regarding forensic examination results, emphasizing that expert opinion evidence should be corroborated by other evidence before being relied upon for conviction. They have noted that the opinion of a handwriting expert, in particular, is considered a piece of corroborative evidence rather than conclusive proof on its own. The courts have highlighted that expert testimony must be carefully scrutinized, and reliance solely on such evidence without independent or reliable corroboration is unsafe.

Additionally, the courts have acknowledged that the science of handwriting identification is not entirely perfect and that the risk of error exists. Therefore, the opinion of a handwriting expert should be supported by other direct or circumstantial evidence to strengthen the case. They have also pointed out that the opinion of an expert is meant to assist the court in forming its own judgment and should be tested by the reasons provided by the expert.

Overall, the courts advocate a cautious and corroborative approach towards forensic examination results, stressing that such evidence is not to be solely determinative of guilt or innocence without supporting evidence.