http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  910 of 2006

PETITIONER: Beena Philipose and Anr.

RESPONDENT: State of Kerala

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3093 of 2006)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment rendered by  a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court maintaining the  conviction of the appellants while reducing the sentence of  imprisonment. The appellants were tried for commission of offence  punishable under Section 420, 471, 120 B read with sections  466 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "Code").

The allegations which led to the trial are essentially to the  effect that appellant No.1 secured admission to the Medical  College, Thiruvanthapuram  on the basis of forged mark-sheet.  The appellant No.1 had appeared for the Second year Pre-  Degree Examination held by the Kerala University and had  secured only a IInd  class.          Having secured 513 out of 1000 marks she could not  have secured admission to the Medical College.  She joined a  degree course with Chemistry as the main subject and Physics  and Mathematics as subsidiary subjects. After graduation, she  continued to nurse the ambition to join the Medical College.  She filed forged mark-sheets by showing that in the Chemistry  main examination she had secured 491/600, though she had  secured only 287/600.  Similarly, for Mathematics subsidiary  examination, instead of 92/200 she changed it 162/200 with  the forged mark-sheet. She was shown to have scored  787/1000 instead of   513/1000 as has been actually scored  by her. It was the case of the prosecution that as a result of  conspiracy between first accused,  i.e. appellant no. 1, second  accused, i.e. father of the girl, appellant no. 2, accused no. 3  an official of the University accused no. 4 a  Contractor and  accused no.5 who turned approver, the mark sheet was  forged.

The forgery was done with the obvious purpose of  utilising forged mark-sheet to secure admission. On the basis  of compliant lodged, investigation was undertaken and charge  sheet was filed. The VIth  Addl. (Spl.)  Sessions Judge,  Thiruvananthapuram found accused guilty and sentenced the  accused persons as follows:\027

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

"Al is sentenced to undergo Simple  Imprisonment for 1 year each for the offences  u/s 421 I.P.C, 466 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C. and 471  I.P.C. A2 and A3 each are sentenced to  undergo RI for 3 years each for the offence  u/s 420 I.P.C.,  466 I.P.C.,  468 I.P.C. and  471 IP.C. No separate sentence is imposed for  the offences U/Ss. 120-B and 465 I.P.C.   The  sentences shall run concurrently. Set off  allowed u/s 428 Cr.P.C."

In appeal, as noted above, the conviction was maintained  but the sentences were reduced to three months and six  months respectively.  

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellants submitted that there is erroneous appreciation of  evidence. The appeal was heard on several dates before the  High Court and after a lapse of about 14 years finally  judgment was delivered. Appellant no.1 is a house-wife and  has no job or source of income of her own. She is a heart  patient and has undergone two open heart surgeries. Her  father, appellant no.2 is a retired Engineer and is presently  about 81 years of age and has no income other than his  pension. He is also a heart patient and has suffered cardiac  arrest. It is pointed out that both the appellants are in custody  and have undergone actual imprisonment for about 70 days  each as on 01.09.2006. Notice was issued restricted to the quantum of sentence.  Learned counsel for the respondent-State referred to an order  passed by this Court in Criminal Appea1 No. 6O8/2006 where  the custodial period was reduced to the period already  undergone, while the fine was enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to  Rs.500,000/- with simple imprisonment on default in case of  non-payment. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out  that in the said case appellant had undergone only  one week  of custody. In the instant case, in case of appellant no.1,  against the imposed sentence of three months she has already  undergone sentence of 70 days. Similarly in case of appellant  no.2 in respect of sentence of six months he has already  undergone sentence of 70 days. In other words, it is pointed  out that a substantial portion of the sentence has already  undergone and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken  considering the fact that the alleged offence was committed a  quarter of century back.  

We find no reason to interfere with the analysis of factual  position made by the trial Court as maintained by the High  Court to conclude guilt of the appellants.

Coming to the residual plea regarding the sentence,  taking note of the peculiar facts and the order passed in  Criminal Appeal No. 608/2006, we reduce the sentence of the  appellants to the period already undergone. The fine amount  imposed, however, shall remain unaltered. The fine amount  shall be deposited within a period of two months before the  Trial Court failing which the default sentence shall be one year  simple imprisonment.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.