Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
C. Kamalakkannan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D. Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1056 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3044 of 2021]
Decided On : 03-03-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 61, 336 and 340 read with Section 49] – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 39] – Criminal conspiracy, forgery and abetment – Conviction and sentence – Highest case of prosecution as against accused appellant is that postal cover in which forged marksheet was purportedly transmitted, bore his handwriting – This fact was sought to be proved through testimony of handwriting expert – As prosecution failed to lead primary evidence, in form of original postal cover, Trial Court could not have concluded that prosecution had succeeded in proving that handwriting on disputed document was that of accused appellant – Non-exhibiting of original document would lead to only possible inference that questioned document i.e., postal cover was never proved as per law and as a consequence, evidentiary value of handwriting expert’s report concluding that postal cover bore handwriting of accused appellant is rendered redundant – Prosecution miserably failed to prove existence of disputed postal cover in which forged marksheet was purportedly posted – Since postal cover itself was not exhibited and proved in evidence, there is no question of accepting prosecution theory that same bore handwriting of accused appellant – Conviction of appellant as recorded by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court as well as High Court does not stand to scrutiny and appellant is entitled to clean acquittal – Appellant acquitted of charges. (Paras 11, 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has preferred instant appeal by special leave for assailing his conviction in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 on file of Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgments, dated 25th October, 2016 passed by the Trial Court, dated 23rd October, 2017 passed by Appellate Court and dated 16th April, 2019 passed by High Court, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The legal document discusses a criminal appeal involving charges of criminal conspiracy, forgery, and abetment under sections of the Indian Penal Code and related evidence laws. The core issue was whether the prosecution adequately proved the existence and authenticity of the disputed postal cover, which was alleged to contain a forged marksheet.
Key points include:
In summary, the court concluded that the prosecution’s failure to produce and prove the original postal cover, combined with the lack of direct evidence tying the handwriting to the accused, invalidated the conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of all charges (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave for assailing his conviction in Calendar Case No. 279 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur1 [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘trial Court’] for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 25th October, 2016, convicted the appellant and the co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused appellant was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial i.e. from 22nd October, 1996 to 16th November, 1996 along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the count of Section 120B IPC; fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the count of Section 468 IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the 2 counts of Section 471 IPC. In case of a default, the accused appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
4. In appeal3 [Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2017] the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur4 [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘appellate Court’] vide judgment dated 23rd October, 2017 affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court but reduced the fine amount to Rs. 600/- on each count of Sections 120B, 468 and 471 (2 counts) of IPC. In case of a default, the accused appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
5. The revision petition5 [Criminal Revision Case No. 1601 of 2017] preferred by the accused appellant also stands rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Madras6 [Hereinafter, referred to as the ‘High Court’] vide judgment dated 16th April, 2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by special leave.
6. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marksheet produced by one Kumari Amudha while applying for admission in the MBBS course, was found to be fabricated. She had secured only 767 marks out of 1200 marks whereas the document i.e. the marksheet produced by her, for admission to the MBBS course portrayed the marks obtained by her to be 1120 out of 1200 marks. A criminal case7 [FIR being Crime No. 2172 of 1996] came to be registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant and the other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of IPC. As mentioned above, the trial resulted in the conviction of the accused appellant and the appeal and revision petition preferred by him were also dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave.
7. Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel representing the accused appellant urged that the only allegation of the prosecution against the appellant is that he prepared the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was supposedly transmitted. He urged that the trial Court placed reliance on the deposition of the co-accused for convicting the accused appellant which tantamounts to a gross illegality. He further submitted that the original postal cover was never produced and exhibited by the prosecution during its evidence before the trial Court. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the accused appellant had prepared the postal cover in his handwriting is ex-facie illegal as the said fact was not proved by leading proper evidence. He further contended that the only evidence, based upon which the Courts below have recorded the guilt of the accused appellant is that of the handwriting expert (PW-18). Learned senior counsel urged that the reasoning sheet prepared by the handwriting expert (PW-18) during the course of scientific examination of the disputed documents was not brought on record and proved by the handwriting expert while testifying on oath and thus, the report of the handwriting expert (PW-18) is inadmissible in evidence.
8. Shri S. Nagamuthu further submitted that the trial Court committed a fundamental error while placing implicit reliance upon the report of the h
Criminal conspiracy, forgery and abetment – Conviction and sentence – Non-exhibiting of original document would lead to only possible inference that questioned document was never proved as per law.
(1) Cheating and forgery – While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish guilt of accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that alle....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
