NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a conviction for forgery for the purpose of cheating (Section 468 IPC) and using a forged document as genuine (Section 471 IPC) cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt who authored the forgery and that the accused used the document with knowledge of its falsity. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta acquitted a student accused of forging her marksheet, emphasizing the settled legal principle that “suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof.”
The court allowed an appeal filed by the student, Vandana, setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld her conviction. The Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case unsustainable due to its failure to prove the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
Case Background
The appellant was a student of the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) course at Aniket College of Social Work, affiliated with Nagpur University. After failing the compulsory English subject in her BSW Part-I examination in 1998, she allegedly submitted a tampered marksheet (Exh. 15) and revaluation notification (Exh. 36) to secure admission to the BSW Part-III course. The prosecution claimed her marks were altered from “10” to “18” on the marksheet and “10” to “30” on the notification.
The documents passed through the college’s admission clerk and principal before the forgery was detected by the university, leading to an FIR. While the trial court convicted the appellant and the two college officials, the High Court in revision acquitted the officials but upheld the student’s conviction.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction rested on weak evidence, highlighting the lack of any handwriting expert or forensic analysis to prove who made the alterations. It was argued that conviction based on “overwriting seen by bare eyes” was unsafe, especially since the documents passed through a chain of custody, and the prosecution failed to establish when and by whom the tampering occurred. The State of Maharashtra defended the High Court’s judgment, seeking dismissal of the appeal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis and found that the prosecution had failed to meet the standard of proof required for the specific offences alleged.
1. Authorship of Forgery Unproven, a Fatal Flaw for Section 468 Conviction: The Court noted that for a conviction under Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must first establish that the accused made a false document. In this case, the documents passed through multiple hands. The judgment stated, “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.” Without proving authorship, the charge of forgery could not be sustained.
2. Conviction Based on ‘Apparent Overwriting’ Alien to Criminal Law: The bench criticized the lower courts’ reliance on a mere “visual inference of overwriting.” It held that in the absence of direct evidence or expert opinion, treating “apparent overwriting” as conclusive proof “is alien to the standard proof beyond reasonable doubt.” This lack of corroboration was deemed a major weakness in the prosecution’s case.
3. Knowledge of Falsity (Mens Rea) for Section 471 Not Established: For a conviction under Section 471 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused used a document knowing or having reason to believe it was forged. The Court found no evidence of this crucial mental element. It observed, “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.”
4. Defective Examination under Section 313 CrPC: The judgment also noted a procedural prejudice against the accused, as incriminating circumstances were put to her in “compound and omnibus questions” during her Section 313 CrPC examination, violating her statutory right to a fair explanation.
The Decision
Reiterating that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused when two views are possible, the Supreme Court held that the evidence on record merely aroused suspicion. It did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had forged the documents under Section 468 or knowingly used them as genuine under Section 471.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant were set aside.
