Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of the appellant, C. Kamalakkannan, in a case concerning the alleged forgery of an educational marksheet used for admission to an MBBS program. The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a decision later upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Supreme Court, however, found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case with legally admissible evidence. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The Court concluded that the fundamental basis for the conviction—the postal cover allegedly containing the forged document—had not been proven in accordance with legal requirements and, therefore, could not support a conviction.

The case originated from allegations that a forged marksheet was submitted by one Kumari Amudha to secure admission to an MBBS program. The document reportedly inflated her actual marks from 767 out of 1200 to 1120 out of 1200. A criminal case was registered, leading to the prosecution of the appellant and other co-accused individuals under the relevant sections of the IPC. The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment already undergone as an undertrial from October 22, 1996, to November 16, 1996. Additionally, the court imposed a fine of ₹1,000 for the offense under Section 120B IPC, ₹1,000 for Section 468 IPC, and ₹2,000 for the two counts under Section 471 IPC. In case of default, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Also Read : Supreme Court Orders Repatriation of Cognitively Impaired Adult, Directs Guardian to Ensure Welfare and Medical Oversight

The appellant’s conviction was challenged before the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, who upheld the trial court's findings but reduced the fine to ₹600 for each count. A subsequent criminal revision petition filed before the Madras High Court was also dismissed. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.

During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, contended that the only allegation against the appellant was that he had prepared the postal cover in which the forged marksheet was purportedly transmitted. He argued that the trial court erroneously relied on the deposition of a co-accused, which amounted to a legal misstep. Further, it was asserted that the original postal cover was never produced as evidence, rendering the conclusion that the appellant had prepared the cover unsustainable. The counsel also submitted that the prosecution's primary reliance on the testimony of the handwriting expert (PW-18) was flawed since the expert’s reasoning sheet, which formed the basis of his conclusions, had not been presented in court, making his report inadmissible.

The State’s counsel opposed these arguments, asserting that the trial court had not relied on the testimony of Vijaya Kumar (PW-9), the father of Kumari Amudha, as alleged by the appellant’s counsel. It was contended that the original postal cover could not be traced and, therefore, reliance on a photocopy as secondary evidence was legally permissible.

The Supreme Court, after examining the materials on record, noted that the prosecution’s case was primarily predicated on proving that the postal cover containing the forged marksheet bore the appellant’s handwriting. The Court observed that this fact was sought to be established through the testimony of the handwriting expert. However, the Court cited the precedent set in Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 1 SCC 704, which outlines the evidentiary principles governing expert testimony. The Court referred to Murari Lal to underscore that while expert opinions may be admissible, they must be scrutinized carefully, and corroboration should be sought where necessary.

Also Read : [NDPS Act] Bar On Bail U/S 37 Can Be Relaxed When Contraband 'Marginally' Above Commercial Quantity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In the present case, the Court found that the trial court relied on the expert’s report despite the original postal cover not being produced as evidence. The non-exhibition of the document led to the conclusion that the document itself had not been legally proved. The Court further observed that even the handwriting expert (PW-18) had not explicitly identified the postal cover that was examined. The failure to establish the existence of the original document in evidence undermined the prosecution’s case, rendering the expert report inconsequential.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the crucial piece of evidence required to sustain the conviction. The Court, therefore, set aside the judgments of the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court, acquitting the appellant of all charges.

Case Title: C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Inspector of Police C.B.C.I.D., Chennai

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 309

Case Number: SLP (Criminal) No. 3044 of 2021

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]