Vandana v. State of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 1098 - IPC - Forgery - S.313 CrPC

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 468,471 - To attract offence of Section 468 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused made a false document within the meaning of Section 464 IPC -Section 471 IPC requires proof that the accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe it to be forged at the time of its use- The passing of the alleged document through the hands of several person before it was detected as forged renders unsafe to arrive at a conclusion that accused had authored the tampering or possessed the contemporaneous knowledge of such tampering. (Para 7-8) The 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 especially in a case where the alleged document has passed through the hands of several persons before forgery is detected. If the same is not proved, at best, the evidence on record may arouse suspicion but they do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had forged, or knowingly used, or attempted to cheat by use of such forged documents. (Para 14)

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Sections 45, 47 and 73 - Evidence on authorship of alleged tampering -While expert opinion is not mandatory, nevertheless when authorship is central to establish the guilt of the accused and by direct evidence it is not demonstrated to show that the alleged writing has been made in the 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 the prosecution. (Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313- Section 313 is not an empty formality. Where there is failure to put material circumstances fairly and distinctly, it causes prejudice and vitiates reliance placed on such circumstances. The said defect strikes at a valuable statutory right of defence of the accused. (Para 12)

Criminal Trial - The benefit of doubt follows when two views are reasonably possible - The Suspicion however grave cannot substitute standard of legal proof. (Para 14)