Abstract

Background: The interrogation of whether a forensic manuscript examiner should provide estimation about composition on handwritten documents in a foreign linguistic has been debated since science’s inception. There is a distinct divide among the discipline’s experts, with some in favor of expressing opinion and the rest fiercely opposed. Aim: The aim of this study describes the class and individual characteristics of Malayalam scripts, laying the groundwork for script forensic testing. Material and Method: When this subject is presented in the context of Indian linguistic diversity, a surveyor who is normally aware with a particular linguistic is challenged with the task of analyzing papers in more than eighteen dialects, all of which is extremely distinct from the others. Fifty samples in the Malayalam language collected for thorough analysis. The handwritten samples were gathered from several writers. The fifty writers knowing the above languages were selected to offer the samples in their own linguistic for the assessment. Result: The majority of symbols in the Dravidian scripts are cursive, with the exception of a few straight-line stroked signs. The writers highly endorse the motivation for document experts to examine these foreign scripts and offer a conclusive verdict after thoroughly evaluating the possibilities and constraints by examining documents. Conclusion: After a careful and thorough examination of handwritten samples, when comparing like with like, a document examiner who is unfamiliar with the script must know what each letter or figure is and where it appears.

• 1.   B. Gawda. A Graphical Analysis of Handwriting of Prisoners Diagnosed with Antisocial Personality. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2008; 107: 3-862.
• 2.   J.R. Beech, I.C. Mackintosh. Do Differences in gender Affect Handwriting Style? Evidence from Digit Ratio and gender Role Identity as Determinants of the gender of Handwriting. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005; 39: 2-459.
• 3.   Z. He, B. Fang, J. Du, Y. Tang, X. You. A Novel Method for Offline Handwriting-based Writer Identification. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition. 2005; 1-242.
• 4.   Murat Topaloglu, Seher Ekmekci. Gender detection and identifyingone’s handwriting with handwriting analysis. 2017; 79-236.
• 5.   Daxa J. Shah, M.S. Dahiya. Class characteristics of Gujarati, and Malayalam linguistics groups in English handwriting. 2014; 3-38.
• 6.   James W. Penne baker, Laura A King. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. 1999; 6-77.
• 7.   Amira E. Youssef, Ahmed S Ibrahim, a Lynn Abbott. Automated gender identification for Arabic and English handwriting. 2013; 9: 556-48.
• 8.   Chaudhari Kinjal, Thakkar Ankit. Survey on handwriting-based personality trait identification. 2019; 5: 124-282.
• 9.   Joshi, Prachi M. & Agarwal, Aayush & Dhavale, Ajinkya & Suryavanshi, Rajani & Kodolikar, Shreya. Handwriting Analysis for Detection of Personality Traits using Machine Learning Approach. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2015; 130: 40-45.
• 10.   Patil, Vishal & Mathur, Harsh. Personality Prediction and Handwriting Recognition Using Machine Learning. 2021; 10: 1002.
• 11.   Champa, H.N. and Kumar, A. Artificial Neural Network Behavior Prediction through Handwriting Analysis. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2010; 2: 12-36.
• 12.   Hilton, O. Scientific examination of questioned documents”, Revised Ed.; CRC press. 1993; 19-24.
• 13.   Huber, R.A. and Headrick. Handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. CRC Press. 1999; 88-120.
• 14.   Kamath. Development of an Automated Handwriting Analysis System”, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2016; 6: 9-135.
• 15.   Kelly, J.S. Lindblom. B.S. Scientific examination of question documents. 2nd ed., CRC press. 2006; 145-150
• 16.   Lal, B. and Chandra, R. Cross examination of handwriting expert. Selective and scientific books publications. 2010; 1-20
• 17.   Graham S., Weintraub N. A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational psychology review. 1996 Mar; 8: 7-87.
• 18.   Srihari S.N., Cha S.H., Arora H., Lee S. Individuality of handwriting. Journal of forensic sciences. 2002 Jul 1; 47(4): 856-72.
• 19.   Berninger V.W., Vaughan K.B., Abbott R.D., Abbott S.P., Rogan L.W., Brooks A.., Reed E, and Graham S. Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of educational Psychology. 1997 Dec;89(4):652.
• 20.   Alston J., Taylor J. Handwriting: Theory, research and practice. Nichols Publishing Company, PO Box 96, New York, NY 10024; 1987.
• 21.   Morris R.N. Forensic handwriting identification: fundamental concepts and principles.
• 22.   Marquardt C., Mai N. A computational procedure for movement analysis in
• 23.   Ramsay J.O. Functional components of variation in handwriting. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2000 Mar 1; 95(449): 9-15.
• 24.   Graham S., Weintraub N., Berninger V.W. The relationship between handwriting style and speed and legibility. The journal of educational research. 1998 May 1; 91(5): 290-7.
• 25.   Sharma Vinny. Handwriting accents to reveal cultural identity of author: An Indian approach. Indian J forensic med Pathol 2021; 14: 168-173.
• 26.   Plamondon R., Srihari S.N. Online and offline handwriting recognition: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence. 2000 Jan; 22(1): 63-84.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding