Vandana vs State Of Maharashtra

2025 INSC 1098 NON-REPORTABLE

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

ORDER

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

as “IPC”) and Fine of Rs. 20,000/- for each of these offences with default Signature Not Verified 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 false document or false electronic record1:

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

Madhya Pradesh1, 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;

SEPTEMBER 11th, 2025.

12