Abstract

Handwriting analysis dates back to the late 1800s when the persons with knowl edge and experience used to analyze the handwriting sample of the author. Withthe increase of knowledge of the subject and its need in the domain of justice system
handwriting analysis, it grew from being an informal subject to an academic subject.
Handwriting analysis has been readily used in forensic science investigations. It is one
of the major branches of forensic science afer fngerprint and DNA wherein maximum cases reports are sought afer. Te cases received for handwriting analysis are
from both the domains of the legal system – civil and criminal. By realizing the importance of handwriting analysis and its further implications in the feld, many researchers have tried to include the usage of computer technology for the purpose of
analysis. Tis approach still has no approval in the legal system wherein the accepted
method is the ofine or manual mode of analysis. Tis current paper is an approach to
frst explain in detail both the modes of handwriting analysis – ofine (manual) and
online (computerized). For online handwriting analysis, different approaches are also
reviewed. Along with this, a comparative analysis has been drawn between the two
approaches to study the pros and cons of both
 

• 1.   Dweik B. Research papers in applied linguistics. Hebron: Hebron University Press; 1986.
• 2.   Ellen D. The scientific examination of documents: methods and techniques. 2nd ed. London: Taylor & Francis; 1997.
• 3.   Ellis R. Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.
• 4.   Farooq F, Lorigo L, Govindaraju V. On the accent in handwriting of individuals. In: Lorette G, editor. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Frontiers in Handwriting Recognition (IWFHR); 2006 Oct 23-26; La Baule, France. Rennes: Université de Rennes 1; 2006.
• 5.   Raju G, Moni BS. A novel handwritten character recognition system using gradient based features and run length count. Sadhana. 2014;39(6):1333-55.
• 6.   Louloudis G, Gatos B, Pratikakis I, Halatsis C. Text line detection in handwritten documents. Pattern Recognit. 2008;41(12):3758-72.
• 7.   Harrison D, Burkes TM, Seiger DP. Handwriting examination: meeting the challenges of science and the law. Forensic Sci Commun [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2026 Jan 21];11(4). Available from: https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2009/review/2009_10_review02.htm
• 8.   Harrison WR. Suspect documents: their scientific examination. 5th Indian Reprint. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing; 2012.
• 9.   Harralson HH, Waites E, Will EJ. A survey of forensic handwriting examination research in response to the NAS report. In: Proceedings of the 17th Biennial Conference of the International Graphonomics Society (IGS); 2015 Jun 21-24; Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe. International Graphonomics Society; 2015.
• 10.   Hilton O. Scientific examination of questioned documents. Rev. ed. New York: Elsevier North Holland; 1982.
• 11.   Huber RA, Headrick AM. Handwriting identification: facts and fundamentals. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1999.
• 12.   Verma K, Sharma RK. Recognition of online handwritten Gurmukhi characters based on zone and stroke identification. Sadhana. 2017;42(5):701-12.
• 13.   Feder KP, Majnemer A. Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49(4):312-7.
• 14.   Mehta MK. Identification of handwriting and cross-examination of experts. 4th ed. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi; 1970.
• 15.   Lutf M, You X, Cheung YM, Chen CP. Offline Arabic handwriting identification using language diacritics. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR); 2010 Aug 23-26; Istanbul, Turkey. IEEE; 2010. p. 3203-6.
• 16.   Morris R. Forensic handwriting identification: fundamental concepts and principles. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000.
• 17.   Mu C, Carrington S. An investigation of three Chinese students’ English writing strategies. TESL-EJ. 2007;11(1):1-23.
• 18.   National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Forensic handwriting examination and human factors: the report of the expert working group for human factors in handwriting examination. Gaithersburg (MD): NIST; 2020 Feb. Report No.: NISTIR 8282.
• 19.   Olana T, Zeleke T, Jiregna K. Mother tongue interference in English language writing at Derge Secondary School: the case of Grade 9 students. Sci Technol Arts Res J. 2015;4(4):208-14.
• 20.   Osborn AS. Questioned documents. 2nd ed. Albany (NY): Boyd Printing Company; 1929.
• 21.   Purohit A, Chauhan S. A literature survey on handwritten character recognition. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol. 2016;7(1):1-5.
• 22.   Ramaiah C, Porwal U, Govindaraju V. Accent detection in handwriting based on writing styles. In: Proceedings of the 10th IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems (DAS); 2012 Mar 27-29; Gold Coast, Australia. IEEE; 2012. p. 317-21.
• 23.   Ridha N. The effect of EFL learners’ mother tongue on their writings in English: an error analysis study. J Coll Arts Univ Basrah. 2012;(60):22-45.
• 24.   Rosyda SS, Suryani E. A review of various handwriting recognition methods. Int J Appl Eng Res. 2018;13(2):1155-64.
• 25.   Saini M. Handwriting variations among Indian population [thesis]. New Delhi: University of Delhi; 2016.
• 26.   Srihari SN, Leedham G. A survey of computer methods in forensic handwritten document examination. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the International Graphonomics Society (IGS); 2003 Nov 2-5; Scottsdale, AZ. International Graphonomics Society; 2003. p. 278-81.
• 27.   Saudek R. Experiments with handwriting. New York: William Morrow & Co; 1929.
• 28.   Sharma BR. Forensic science in criminal investigation & trials. 4th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing; 2003. p. 586-94.
• 29.   Vaidya SA, Balaji R. A novel approach of handwritten character recognition using positional feature extraction. Int J Comput Sci Mob Comput. 2013;2(6):179-86.
• 30.   Yigzaw A. Students’ first language writing skills and their English language proficiency as predictors of their English language writing performance. J Lang Cult. 2013;4(6):109-14.