Question

Non identity of questioned writings can be established by comparing it with known writings, if:
A. A known and questioned writings have a considerable number of general similarities that outnumber a few fundamental repeated differences.
B. The presence of a combination of identifying attributes and a coexistent lack of basic divergences between questioned and known writings.
C. The presence of a combination of identifying attributes and coexistence of a few basic divergences between questioned and known writings.
D. If known and questioned writings are very much alike but not identical.

• A. A, B and C only
• B. B, C and D only
• C. A, C and D only
• D. A, B and D only

Hint:

In handwriting analysis, \textbf{differences are more significant than similarities}. A single, repeated, fundamental difference is enough to conclude non-identity. Similarities can be coincidental or imitated, but it's nearly impossible for a person to have fundamental differences from their own natural writing.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Principle (Forensic Handwriting):
Non-identity is concluded when there are fundamental, repeated divergences between questioned (Q) and known (K) writings that cannot be explained by natural variation, writing conditions, disguise, or deterioration. In handwriting comparison, the quality of differences (fundamental vs. trivial) is more important than the quantity of similarities.

What counts as “fundamental” differences?
Stable features like letter construction and sequence of strokes, relative proportions, slant and rhythm, pen lifts and connecting strokes, stroke direction and terminals, baseline alignment, pressure patterns, and distinctive diacritic habits. If such features consistently differ, they override numerous general similarities.

Evaluate each statement:

A. “A known and questioned writings have a considerable number of general similarities that outnumber a few fundamental repeated differences.”
➤ Correct for non-identity. Even if similarities are many, repeated fundamental differences (quality) outweigh similarities (quantity). Thus, Q ≠ K.
\( \textbf{Key idea: } \text{Fundamental differences} \; \gg \; \text{general similarities}. \)

B. “Presence of identifying attributes and a coexistent lack of basic divergences between questioned and known writings.”
➤ Not supportive of non-identity. “Lack of divergences” suggests the writings may be by the same writer (or, at least, not excludable). This aligns with possible identity, not non-identity. Hence B is excluded.

C. “Presence of identifying attributes and coexistence of a few basic divergences between questioned and known writings.”
➤ Correct for non-identity if those basic divergences are fundamental and repeated (and not explainable by natural variation/conditions). The mention of divergences is the decisive element for exclusion. 

D. “If known and questioned writings are very much alike but not identical.”
➤ Taken as supportive of non-identity in exam context: In practice, no two genuine writings are literally identical; however, when “not identical” reflects consistent, fundamental differences on close examination (despite strong overall likeness), examiners conclude non-identity. This option is typically included to test the idea that similarity isn’t sufficiency—diagnostic differences rule. 
\( \textbf{Caveat: } \text{If “not identical” = only trivial variation, then no exclusion. Here, it implies substantive divergences.} \)

Therefore, the combination that establishes non-identity is:
\( \boxed{\text{A, C, and D only}} \)

Why not B?
Because “lack of basic divergences” is the opposite of what we need to exclude a writer. Without demonstrable divergences, there is no basis for non-identity.