Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1098
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3977 OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 9317 OF 2025)
VANDANA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
O R D E R
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of the
judgment of the High court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur bench in
Criminal Revision Application no. 78 of 2019 which affirmed the
judgement rendered in Criminal Appeal no. 98 of 2007 which had
reduced/altered the sentence imposed by the trial court for rigorous
imprisonment Three years for the offence under section(s) 420 and 468
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be read
Signature Not Verified
as “IPC”) and Fine of Rs. 20,000/- for each of these offences with default
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.09.11
18:01:25 IST
Reason:
1
sentence of Two months; and Rigorous Imprisonment for One year for the
offence punishable under section 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and
default sentence of One month to Simple Imprisonment for One year for
the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 511 IPC and
fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence of Two months and further
Simple Imprisonment of One year for the offences punishable under
section 468 and 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
respectively, with default sentence of Two months/One-month simple
imprisonment respectively.
3. The material facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are
set forth hereunder:
3.1 It is the case of the appellant that she was a student of Bachelor of
Social Work (BSW) at Aniket College of Social Work affiliated to
Nagpur University and had appeared for the summer session
examination of 1998 BSW Part-I and had secured 05 marks in the
compulsory English subject and on revaluation she secured 10 marks
and had been declared as ‘failed’. Thereafter, to secure admission in
BSW Part-III course she submitted her admission form along with her
mark-sheet (Exh. 15) and revaluation notification (Exh. 36) which
was received and verified by Admission Clerk (acquitted as Accused
No. 3) and further attested and signed by the principal (acquitted as
2
Accused No. 2) and sent to the University for further process where
the examination department noticed the alleged forgery and cancelled
her admission. It was alleged by the prosecution that the marks in the
Compulsory English Subject were altered from “10” to “18” in the
mark-sheet (Exh. 15) and from “10” to “30” in the notification (Exh.
36), and that on the basis of such tampered documents she attempted
to secure admission to BSW-III course. On the basis of letter received
by the University, an FIR came to be registered, and after
investigation petitioner was charge-sheeted, and the name of the other
two accused were inserted on an application filed under section 319
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as
“Cr.P.C.”) by the prosecution. During the trial, after the examination
of prosecution witnesses, section 313 CrPC statement of Accused No.
1 came to be recorded by putting compound questions wherein it was
stated by her that she had submitted the correct examination form
along with marksheet and revaluation notification and denied the
allegations of forgery. Ultimately, after the trial, all the three accused
were convicted. On an appeal, the sentence was modified and
affirmed in the revision petition as noted supra. On Revision, by all
the accused persons, the Revisional Court by the impugned order
acquitted the co-accused No. 2 and 3 while upholding the conviction
3
of Accused No. 1. Aggrieved by the same, Appellant-Accused No. 1
is in appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
examined the material on record along with the orders of the courts below.
4.1. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Impugned
Judgement overlooked the evidentiary infirmities in the
prosecution’s case particularly in the light of absence of any
handwriting expert or forensic verification of the allegedly forged
marksheet or notification and still proceeded to convict the
appellant.
4.2. The Learned Counsel further submitted that overwriting seen by
bare eyes without expert corroboration is an unsafe basis for
criminal conviction in light of the standard of proof required under
the criminal law.
4.3. The Learned Counsel further contended that no university official
who prepared or dispatched the marksheet or notification was
4
examined as witness, depriving the accused of a fair opportunity to
challenged the chain of custody or authorship of the documents.
4.4. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the basic requirement
under section 420 IPC that the accused must have induced a person
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property was not proved
especially in the light of the fact that the University admitted the
student on documents certified by the college.
4.5. The Learned Counsel lastly submitted that Exh. 37 (original) and
Exh. 36 (Alleged Tampered Copy) were not proved to be materially
inconsistent in a manner that would attribute forgery to the appellant
alone. Hence, he prayed to allow the present appeal.
4.6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent vehemently supported the Impugned Judgement of
conviction and sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. The offences involved in the present appeal are section 420, 468,
471 of the IPC and for immediate reference they are extracted herein below
5
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits
forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged
shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record. - Whoever fraudulently and dishonestly uses as genuine
any document or electronic record which he knows or has
reason to believe to be forged document or electronic record,
shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such
document or electronic record
.”
6. The offence of forgery and making of false document as defined
under section 463 and section 464 of the IPC are extracted herein below
for ready reference:
“463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents or false
electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person,
or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part
with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.
464. Making a false document . - A person is said to make a
1
false document or false electronic record :
First— Who dishonestly or fraudulently—
6
(a) makes , sign, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or
the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or digital signature was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority or a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly— who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or
an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been
made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or
dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly— who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person,
sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or
to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing
that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced
upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”
7. It is apposite to note that to attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the
prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within
the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat. Likewise, Section
471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as
genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of
its use.
7
8. In the instant case, the mark-sheet and the revaluation notification
went through a chain of custody. Firstly, from appellant to admission clerk
and after the admission clerk had verified and received the alleged
documents then the custody was routed to the principal of the college. The
prosecution had failed to prove, by any reliable evidence, that the alleged
tampering was effected by Appellant herself or while the documents were
in the exclusive custody and control of the appellant this tampering had
occurred. On the contrary, the material evidence would disclose that the
documents passed through institutional hands for scrutiny, endorsement
and forwarding and at certain points of time it was not in the custody of
appellant at all. In such circumstances, the passing of the alleged document
through the hands of several person before it was detected as forged
renders unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that appellant had authored the
tampering or possessed the contemporaneous knowledge of such
tampering. It is apt to mention that it is well-established principle of law
that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof.
9. Secondly, the court below have rested essentially on visual
inference of overwriting to hold tampering stood established. No
handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the
8
authorship of alleged tampering. This court in Fakhruddin v. State of
1
Madhya Pradesh , has observed:
“ 10. Evidence of the identity of hand writing receives treatment
in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act. They are Sections
45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the
writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he
wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence
of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act
also makes relevant the opinion of a hand writing expert (S. 45)
or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is
said to have written a particular writing. Thus, besides direct
evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law
makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be
in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a
person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the
testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of
handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (S. 73) is
comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of
the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
11. Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the
former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis
of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and
experience, In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such
means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such
means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the
admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the
disputed one, not to becorof v an handwriting expert but to
verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise
the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison
depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or
proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in
large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of
the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and
although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an
expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with
the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether
it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same
person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an
expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only
1 (1966) SCC OnLine SC 55
9
when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe
to accept the, opinion whether of the expert or other witness.”
10. While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when
authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct
evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been
made in the presence of a witness, non-examination of an expert or any
other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond
reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution. Therefore, the
courts below treated “ apparent overwriting” as conclusive which approach
is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Thirdly, even assuming the prosecution theory to be true namely,
that documents were deployed to secure admission to BSW-III course,
record do not establish the mens rea which is pre-requisite for Section 471
IPC (knowledge/reason to believe) or for attempt to cheat under Section
420 read with Section 511 IPC being present. The documents were
stamped by college authorities and passed through administrative scrutiny.
In the absence of evidence that the appellant had dishonest intention to
either make the false document or knew of its falsity while submitting it,
the mental status or mens rea remains unproved.
12. Fourthly, we also found observations of non-compliance with
Section 313 CrPC. It is found that several incriminating circumstances
10
were put to the appellant in compound and omnibus questions as recorded
by the appellate court. This court has constantly held and we reiterate that
Section 313 is not an empty formality. Where there is failure to put
material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates
reliance placed on such circumstances. The said defect strikes at a valuable
statutory right of defence of the accused. In the present case, it is on record
that the accused was not possibly able to understand the incriminating
circumstances put against her and was not able to answer properly because
of the compound questions. Nevertheless, the courts have relied upon the
statement which in our considered view causes prejudice to the accused.
13. Hence, in the light of aforesaid discussion, we find the conviction
to be unsustainable. We say so because after meticulously examining
aforesaid provisions and the judgements of the court below it is clearly
discernible that all the courts while appreciating the evidence on record
have confined themselves to the issue of establishing the alleged
tampering. However, the prosecution has not discharged its burden on
authorship of the alleged forgery.
14. The settled principles are well known:
(i) That the benefit of doubt follows when two views are
reasonably possible;
(ii) That the Suspicion however grave cannot substitute
standard of legal proof; and
11
(iii) That the exclusive control of the alleged forged document
must be proved when there is lack of direct evidence to connect
the alleged forgery to the accused especially in a case where the
alleged document has passed through the hands of several
persons before forgery is detected. If the same is not proved, at
best, the evidence on record may arouse suspicion but they do
not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had
forged, or knowingly used, or attempted to cheat by use of such
forged documents.
15. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves
to be allowed and accordingly, it stands Allowed and the conviction of the
appellant under the Impugned order dated 08.05.2025 in Criminal Revision
Application No. 78 of 2019 under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC
Sections 468 and 471 IPC together with the sentences imposed, are hereby
set aside .
16. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
……..……………..................J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
……..……………..................J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
th
SEPTEMBER 11 , 2025.
12
2025 INSC 1098
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3977 OF 2025
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 9317 OF 2025)
VANDANA …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
O R D E R
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant has questioned the correctness and legality of the
judgment of the High court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur bench in
Criminal Revision Application no. 78 of 2019 which affirmed the
judgement rendered in Criminal Appeal no. 98 of 2007 which had
reduced/altered the sentence imposed by the trial court for rigorous
imprisonment Three years for the offence under section(s) 420 and 468
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be read
Signature Not Verified
as “IPC”) and Fine of Rs. 20,000/- for each of these offences with default
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.09.11
18:01:25 IST
Reason:
1
sentence of Two months; and Rigorous Imprisonment for One year for the
offence punishable under section 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and
default sentence of One month to Simple Imprisonment for One year for
the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 511 IPC and
fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default sentence of Two months and further
Simple Imprisonment of One year for the offences punishable under
section 468 and 471 IPC with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.10,000/-
respectively, with default sentence of Two months/One-month simple
imprisonment respectively.
3. The material facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are
set forth hereunder:
3.1 It is the case of the appellant that she was a student of Bachelor of
Social Work (BSW) at Aniket College of Social Work affiliated to
Nagpur University and had appeared for the summer session
examination of 1998 BSW Part-I and had secured 05 marks in the
compulsory English subject and on revaluation she secured 10 marks
and had been declared as ‘failed’. Thereafter, to secure admission in
BSW Part-III course she submitted her admission form along with her
mark-sheet (Exh. 15) and revaluation notification (Exh. 36) which
was received and verified by Admission Clerk (acquitted as Accused
No. 3) and further attested and signed by the principal (acquitted as
2
Accused No. 2) and sent to the University for further process where
the examination department noticed the alleged forgery and cancelled
her admission. It was alleged by the prosecution that the marks in the
Compulsory English Subject were altered from “10” to “18” in the
mark-sheet (Exh. 15) and from “10” to “30” in the notification (Exh.
36), and that on the basis of such tampered documents she attempted
to secure admission to BSW-III course. On the basis of letter received
by the University, an FIR came to be registered, and after
investigation petitioner was charge-sheeted, and the name of the other
two accused were inserted on an application filed under section 319
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as
“Cr.P.C.”) by the prosecution. During the trial, after the examination
of prosecution witnesses, section 313 CrPC statement of Accused No.
1 came to be recorded by putting compound questions wherein it was
stated by her that she had submitted the correct examination form
along with marksheet and revaluation notification and denied the
allegations of forgery. Ultimately, after the trial, all the three accused
were convicted. On an appeal, the sentence was modified and
affirmed in the revision petition as noted supra. On Revision, by all
the accused persons, the Revisional Court by the impugned order
acquitted the co-accused No. 2 and 3 while upholding the conviction
3
of Accused No. 1. Aggrieved by the same, Appellant-Accused No. 1
is in appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
examined the material on record along with the orders of the courts below.
4.1. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Impugned
Judgement overlooked the evidentiary infirmities in the
prosecution’s case particularly in the light of absence of any
handwriting expert or forensic verification of the allegedly forged
marksheet or notification and still proceeded to convict the
appellant.
4.2. The Learned Counsel further submitted that overwriting seen by
bare eyes without expert corroboration is an unsafe basis for
criminal conviction in light of the standard of proof required under
the criminal law.
4.3. The Learned Counsel further contended that no university official
who prepared or dispatched the marksheet or notification was
4
examined as witness, depriving the accused of a fair opportunity to
challenged the chain of custody or authorship of the documents.
4.4. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the basic requirement
under section 420 IPC that the accused must have induced a person
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property was not proved
especially in the light of the fact that the University admitted the
student on documents certified by the college.
4.5. The Learned Counsel lastly submitted that Exh. 37 (original) and
Exh. 36 (Alleged Tampered Copy) were not proved to be materially
inconsistent in a manner that would attribute forgery to the appellant
alone. Hence, he prayed to allow the present appeal.
4.6. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent vehemently supported the Impugned Judgement of
conviction and sentence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. The offences involved in the present appeal are section 420, 468,
471 of the IPC and for immediate reference they are extracted herein below
5
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Whoever commits
forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged
shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic
record. - Whoever fraudulently and dishonestly uses as genuine
any document or electronic record which he knows or has
reason to believe to be forged document or electronic record,
shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such
document or electronic record
.”
6. The offence of forgery and making of false document as defined
under section 463 and section 464 of the IPC are extracted herein below
for ready reference:
“463. Forgery.- Whoever makes any false documents or false
electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person,
or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part
with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.
464. Making a false document . - A person is said to make a
1
false document or false electronic record :
First— Who dishonestly or fraudulently—
6
(a) makes , sign, seals or executes a document or part of a
document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any
electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or
the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or digital signature was made,
signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the
authority or a person by whom or by whose authority he knows
that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or
Secondly— who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or
an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been
made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by
himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or
dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly— who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person,
sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or
to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing
that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or
intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced
upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or
electronic record or the nature of the alteration.”
7. It is apposite to note that to attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the
prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within
the meaning of Section 464 IPC, with intent to cheat. Likewise, Section
471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as
genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of
its use.
7
8. In the instant case, the mark-sheet and the revaluation notification
went through a chain of custody. Firstly, from appellant to admission clerk
and after the admission clerk had verified and received the alleged
documents then the custody was routed to the principal of the college. The
prosecution had failed to prove, by any reliable evidence, that the alleged
tampering was effected by Appellant herself or while the documents were
in the exclusive custody and control of the appellant this tampering had
occurred. On the contrary, the material evidence would disclose that the
documents passed through institutional hands for scrutiny, endorsement
and forwarding and at certain points of time it was not in the custody of
appellant at all. In such circumstances, the passing of the alleged document
through the hands of several person before it was detected as forged
renders unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that appellant had authored the
tampering or possessed the contemporaneous knowledge of such
tampering. It is apt to mention that it is well-established principle of law
that suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof.
9. Secondly, the court below have rested essentially on visual
inference of overwriting to hold tampering stood established. No
handwriting or forensic expert opinion was obtained regarding the
8
authorship of alleged tampering. This court in Fakhruddin v. State of
1
Madhya Pradesh , has observed:
“ 10. Evidence of the identity of hand writing receives treatment
in three sections of the Indian Evidence Act. They are Sections
45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the
writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he
wrote. This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence
of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act
also makes relevant the opinion of a hand writing expert (S. 45)
or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is
said to have written a particular writing. Thus, besides direct
evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law
makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be
in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a
person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the
testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of
handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (S. 73) is
comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of
the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
11. Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the
former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis
of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and
experience, In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such
means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such
means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the
admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the
disputed one, not to becorof v an handwriting expert but to
verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise
the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparison
depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or
proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in
large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of
the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and
although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an
expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with
the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether
it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same
person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an
expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only
1 (1966) SCC OnLine SC 55
9
when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe
to accept the, opinion whether of the expert or other witness.”
10. While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when
authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct
evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been
made in the presence of a witness, non-examination of an expert or any
other cogent proof of authorship to corroborate the alleged forgery beyond
reasonable doubt weighs heavily against the prosecution. Therefore, the
courts below treated “ apparent overwriting” as conclusive which approach
is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Thirdly, even assuming the prosecution theory to be true namely,
that documents were deployed to secure admission to BSW-III course,
record do not establish the mens rea which is pre-requisite for Section 471
IPC (knowledge/reason to believe) or for attempt to cheat under Section
420 read with Section 511 IPC being present. The documents were
stamped by college authorities and passed through administrative scrutiny.
In the absence of evidence that the appellant had dishonest intention to
either make the false document or knew of its falsity while submitting it,
the mental status or mens rea remains unproved.
12. Fourthly, we also found observations of non-compliance with
Section 313 CrPC. It is found that several incriminating circumstances
10
were put to the appellant in compound and omnibus questions as recorded
by the appellate court. This court has constantly held and we reiterate that
Section 313 is not an empty formality. Where there is failure to put
material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates
reliance placed on such circumstances. The said defect strikes at a valuable
statutory right of defence of the accused. In the present case, it is on record
that the accused was not possibly able to understand the incriminating
circumstances put against her and was not able to answer properly because
of the compound questions. Nevertheless, the courts have relied upon the
statement which in our considered view causes prejudice to the accused.
13. Hence, in the light of aforesaid discussion, we find the conviction
to be unsustainable. We say so because after meticulously examining
aforesaid provisions and the judgements of the court below it is clearly
discernible that all the courts while appreciating the evidence on record
have confined themselves to the issue of establishing the alleged
tampering. However, the prosecution has not discharged its burden on
authorship of the alleged forgery.
14. The settled principles are well known:
(i) That the benefit of doubt follows when two views are
reasonably possible;
(ii) That the Suspicion however grave cannot substitute
standard of legal proof; and
11
(iii) That the exclusive control of the alleged forged document
must be proved when there is lack of direct evidence to connect
the alleged forgery to the accused especially in a case where the
alleged document has passed through the hands of several
persons before forgery is detected. If the same is not proved, at
best, the evidence on record may arouse suspicion but they do
not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had
forged, or knowingly used, or attempted to cheat by use of such
forged documents.
15. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, the appeal deserves
to be allowed and accordingly, it stands Allowed and the conviction of the
appellant under the Impugned order dated 08.05.2025 in Criminal Revision
Application No. 78 of 2019 under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC
Sections 468 and 471 IPC together with the sentences imposed, are hereby
set aside .
16. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
……..……………..................J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
……..……………..................J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
th
SEPTEMBER 11 , 2025.
12