SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Beena Philipose and Another
Vs
State of Kerala
Appeal (Crl.) 910 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (Crl.) No. 3093 of 2006)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
04.09.2006
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:
"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.