Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against Man Accused Of Arranging Fake Marks Cards, Citing No Independent Evidence Beyond Co-Accused’s Police Statement

Smt. R. Savitharani submitted educational documents in support of an application for compassionate appointment. The concerned educational authorities reportedly stated that the marks cards were not genuine and that the school was not affiliated with the relevant Board.

Ramanagara Town Police registered Crime No. 47/2020 for offences under Sections 417, 465, 466, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC; after investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 27 July 2024, naming the petitioner as Accused No. 5.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that his alleged involvement rested solely on Accused No. 4’s statement to police. The State acknowledged that the investigation had produced no independent material connecting the petitioner to the alleged fabrication or procurement of the documents.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, bars proof against an accused of a confession made to a police officer, subject to the limited exception under Section 27.

Under Section 30, a co-accused’s confession may be considered only subject to the statutory conditions and cannot, by itself, constitute substantive evidence establishing another accused’s guilt.

The Court applied these principles to assess whether the material in the charge sheet was sufficient to sustain proceedings against the petitioner.

The allegation that the petitioner arranged for and delivered fabricated documents was based on Accused No. 4’s statement to the police. The Court held that the statement could not, by itself, serve as substantive evidence against the petitioner.

The State confirmed that there was no independent material, seizure, recovery, or other witness statement implicating him; the alleged preparation site no longer existed.

In those circumstances, continuing the prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process.

It reserved liberty for further investigation and appropriate consequential steps if legally admissible material implicating the petitioner is obtained, and clarified that proceedings against the remaining accused would remain unaffected.