Conviction for Forged Mark-sheet Is Set Aside for Lack of Proof of Authorship and Defective 313 CrPC Inquiry

A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by a student challenging the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench order which had affirmed convictions and sentences for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC arising from alleged tampering with a university mark-sheet and revaluation notification. The appeal questioned the sufficiency of evidence on authorship of the alleged forgery, the absence of expert handwriting or forensic opinion, the chain of custody of documents and the adequacy of questioning under Section 313 CrPC.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant. It found that the prosecution had not proved that the appellant had authored or had exclusive control of the alleged tampering, and that reliance on visual inference of overwriting without expert corroboration was unsafe for criminal conviction. The judges observed that "suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot replace the standard of legal proof" and that "Section 313 is not an empty formality." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background The appellant had sought admission to BSW Part-III after the 1998 summer session; her original mark-sheet showed low marks in compulsory English and a revaluation result left her declared failed. She submitted a mark-sheet (Exh.15) and a revaluation notification (Exh.36) to the college for admission, which the admission clerk and the principal processed and forwarded to the university. The university alleged alterations—marks changed from "10" to "18" in the mark-sheet and from "10" to "30" in the notification—and cancelled admission, leading to an FIR and trial. At trial all three accused were convicted; on appeal and revision the co-accused were acquitted while the appellant's conviction was affirmed, prompting the present appeal to this Court.

The Supreme Court reviewed the material and identified multiple infirmities in the prosecution case: the documents had passed through institutional hands so exclusive custody by the appellant was not established; there was no handwriting or forensic expert opinion to establish authorship despite reliance on apparent overwriting; and the record did not prove mens rea required under Sections 468, 471 or attempt under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC. The Court also found that several incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in compound and omnibus form in the Section 313 CrPC examination, which prejudiced her defence. Applying settled principles, the Court held that doubts on authorship and the lack of cogent proof required acquittal and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions and sentences. All pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3977 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9317 of 2025) Case Title: Vandana v. State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]