DATE: 03/03/2025
BENCH: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS:
The case involves the conviction of the appellant in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur for offences under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 (two counts) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The prosecution's case is that Kumari Amudha, while applying for admission to an MBBS course, submitted a fabricated mark sheet. While her actual marks were 767 out of 1200, the forged document falsely reflected 1120 out of 1200 marks. Based on this, an FIR (Crime No. 2172 of 1996) was registered, leading to an investigation and a charge sheet being filed against the appellant and other co-accused for their involvement in the forgery.
The trial court, in its judgment dated 25th October 2016, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial (22nd October 1996 – 16th November 1996) along with fines under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 IPC. The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in an appeal, upheld the conviction but reduced the fine amounts. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a revision petition, reaffirmed the conviction and sentence on 16th April 2019. With both appellate courts dismissing his challenge, the appellant has now preferred the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The main issues in this case was whether the impugned judgments, dated 25th October, 2016 passed by the trial Court, dated 23rd October, 2017 passed by the appellate Court and dated 16th April, 2019 passed by the High Court are valid.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and the High Court are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court found that the prosecution's primary allegation against the appellant was that the postal cover, which allegedly contained the forged marksheet, bore his handwriting. However, the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited in evidence, making the conclusion drawn by the trial court legally unsustainable. The court emphasized that without primary evidence, the prosecution could not establish that the handwriting on the disputed document belonged to the appellant. Consequently, the reliance on the handwriting expert’s report was deemed inadmissible and insufficient to convict the appellant.
Furthermore, the court referred to the precedent set in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., which states that expert opinions, including handwriting analysis, must be carefully scrutinized and corroborated by other reliable evidence. In this case, the handwriting expert (PW-18) failed to properly identify the postal cover, and his reasoning sheet was not brought on record. Since the prosecution’s case was entirely dependent on unproven documentary evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained, warranting his acquittal.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant highlights the fundamental principle that a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of reliable and admissible evidence. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the claim that the appellant had prepared the postal cover used to transmit the forged mark sheet. However, the failure to produce the original postal cover in evidence rendered the prosecution’s claim unproven. The court correctly observed that without this crucial piece of evidence, there was no basis to conclude that the appellant’s handwriting appeared on the disputed document. Moreover, the reliance on the handwriting expert’s report without properly establishing the authenticity of the questioned document was legally insufficient. The ruling underscores the requirement for strict adherence to evidentiary rules, particularly when forensic and expert evidence is used to establish guilt.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s reliance on Murari Lal v. State of M.P. reinforces the legal position that expert opinions, particularly in handwriting analysis, must be treated with caution and cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated by other credible evidence. In this case, the handwriting expert (PW-18) failed to provide a properly substantiated report, and the reasoning sheet, which formed the basis of his conclusions, was not presented in court. This further weakened the prosecution’s case. The judgment reflects the court’s commitment to upholding procedural fairness and evidentiary integrity, ensuring that no individual is convicted based on incomplete or speculative evidence. By acquitting the appellant, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that criminal convictions must be based on proven facts and not mere conjecture.
info@adhwaitha.com
