IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 alleged writing has been made in 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 prosecution.
(2) Where there is failure to put material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates reliance placed on such circumstances.

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 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 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 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 corro