Forgery Allegation Cannot Stand Without Proof of Authorship: Supreme Court Acquits Student in Marksheet Tampering Case

“Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt”:  Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling overturning the conviction of a student accused of tampering with her academic documents to gain admission to a higher course. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational element of authorship of forgery and reiterated that "where documents pass through multiple hands, the prosecution must establish exclusive control to sustain conviction".

The case involved allegations of altering marks on a university mark-sheet and revaluation notification. However, the Court found that in the absence of forensic proof, direct evidence, or any clear link between the accused and the actual act of forgery, the conviction was legally untenable. "A conviction for forgery must rest on something more than visual assumptions and institutional suspicion," the Court remarked.

“When Forged Documents Pass Through Institutional Hands, Exclusive Custody Must Be Proved Before Attributing Guilt”

The appellant, Vandana, had appeared for her BSW Part-I examination in 1998 and failed in the Compulsory English paper. On revaluation, her score increased from 05 to 10, which still resulted in a ‘fail’ grade. Subsequently, she submitted documents to secure admission into the BSW Part-III course, which were alleged to be tampered — with the mark-sheet altered from “10” to “18” and the revaluation notification from “10” to “30”.

These documents were certified and endorsed by college authorities, including the admission clerk and principal, both of whom were initially charged but later acquitted. Only Vandana was ultimately convicted. The High Court upheld her conviction under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that "the mark-sheet and the revaluation notification went through a chain of custody" and were handled by institutional officers before reaching the university. Therefore, unless it was proven that the tampering occurred while the documents were in the exclusive control of the accused, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

"The prosecution had failed to prove, by any reliable evidence, that the alleged tampering was effected by the appellant herself," the Court observed. "The passing of the alleged document through the hands of several persons before it was detected as forged renders it unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that the appellant had authored the tampering."

“Visual Overwriting Is Not Proof of Forgery Unless Corroborated by Expert Evidence”: Supreme Court Cautions Against Unsafe Convictions

Criticising the approach of the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the entire conviction was premised on visual detection of overwriting, with no handwriting expert or forensic analysis conducted. The Court underscored that visual suspicion, even if apparent, does not meet the threshold of criminal proof.

"This Court in Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1966) observed that handwriting must be proved either by direct evidence, expert opinion, or comparison by the Court with admitted writing," the Bench recalled. It added, "While expert opinion is not mandatory, when authorship is central to establishing guilt, and there is no direct evidence, non-examination of an expert weighs heavily against the prosecution."

The Bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, concluded that the courts below had treated "apparent overwriting" as conclusive evidence. This approach, it said, was "alien to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt."

"Mens Rea Remains Unproven; Prosecution Must Prove Dishonest Intention in Forgery Offences"

Another cornerstone of the judgment was the Court’s finding that even if tampering was assumed, there was no proof of mens rea, i.e., guilty intent — a critical ingredient under Sections 420 and 471 IPC.

"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," the Court said.

Further, it emphasized that Section 420 IPC requires proof of fraudulent inducement leading to delivery of property or valuable security, and the prosecution had not shown that the university admitted the student solely on the strength of her own unauthenticated submission.

"The documents were stamped by college authorities and passed through administrative scrutiny. Hence, the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for any consequence," it observed.

“Section 313 CrPC Is Not an Empty Form: Omnibus Questions Cause Prejudice and Vitiate the Accused's Defence”

The Court also noted a procedural lapse in the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. It found that several compound and vague questions were put to the appellant, affecting her ability to defend against specific allegations.

"Section 313 is not an empty formality," the Court reiterated. "Where there is failure to put material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates reliance placed on such circumstances."

The judgment reiterated the importance of fair trial rights and held that the improper questioning process had caused real prejudice to the appellant’s defence. "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," the Court held.

“Two Views Being Reasonably Possible, the Benefit of Doubt Must Go to the Accused”: Court Restates Criminal Jurisprudence Principles

Summarising its verdict, the Supreme Court said: "The settled principles are well known: (i) That the benefit of doubt follows when two views are reasonably possible; (ii) That suspicion however grave cannot substitute standard of legal proof; and (iii) That 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."

Ultimately, finding multiple legal and evidentiary lapses in the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2025