Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served, keeping the fine unchanged.

Summary

The appellants, Beena Philipose and her father, were convicted for forging university mark‑sheets to secure admission to a medical college, offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 120B, 466 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge sentenced them to one year and three years of imprisonment respectively; the Kerala High Court reduced the terms to three months and six months. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the evidence was improperly appreciated and that their advanced age, serious health conditions, the lapse of twenty‑five years since the offence, and the fact that they had already served about 70 days warranted a further reduction. The Court affirmed the trial court’s factual findings of guilt, finding no ground to interfere with the evidence assessment. However, invoking the peculiar facts and a prior Supreme Court precedent, it reduced each sentence to the period already undergone while leaving the imposed fine unchanged. The fine must be paid within two months, failing which a default sentence of one year simple imprisonment will attach.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court's factual findings of guilt based on the evidence can be disturbed on appeal.
Whether the sentence should be reduced in view of the appellants' age, health, the passage of time since the offence, and the period already served.
Whether the fine imposed should be altered or remain as ordered.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 428
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 420, s. 466, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

forgerymedical college admissionIndian Penal Codesentencingsentence reductionfinehealth and age considerationscriminal appeal

Judgment

'<
'
A BEENA PHILIPOSE AND ANR.
v.
STA TE OF KERA LA

SEPTl:::MBER 4, 2006

B [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.]

Sentencing:

Conviction for forging mark-sheet for securing admission in medical
C college-Offence committed a quarter of century back-Accused now old and
sick and have already undergone substantial sentence-In the peculiar facts,
sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

The prosecution's case was that the appellant Nos.I and 2 (Al and A2)
D had forged mark-sheet for securing admission to the medical college. Sessions
Judge found them guilty and awarded Al to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year and A2 to undergo RI for three years. On appeal, High Court
maintained conviction but reduced the sentences to three months and six
months respectively.

E In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that there was erroneous
appreciation of evidence lly Courts below; that appellant No. I is a house-wife
and has no job or source of income of her own; that she is a heart patient and
has undergone two open heart surgeries; that her father, appellant no.2 is a
retired Engineer and is presently about 81 years of age and has suffered
cardiac arrest; that both the appellants are in custody and have undergone
F actual imprisonment for about 70 days each and that a substantial portion of
the sentence has been already undergone and, therefore, a lenient view should •
be taken considering the fact that the alleged offence was committed a quarter
of century back.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: I. There is 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. (723-8-CJ

720
H
BEENA PHILIPOSE v. STATE OF KERALA [PASA YAT..I.] 721

2. Coming to the residual plea regarding the sentence taking note of A
the peculiar facts, the sentence of the appellants is reduced 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.1723-C-DI
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 910 of2006.

From the Judgment dated 29.11.2005 of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 686/1992C.

U.U. Lalit, Surender Mohan, Vishnu B. Saharya, Vivek B. Saharya and C
Visesh B. Saharya (for Mis. Saharya & Co.) for the Appellants.

G. Prakash, Beena Prakash and K.D. Dileep Kumar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
ARIJIT PASAYA T, 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.
E
The appellants were tried for commission of offence punishable under
Section 420, 4 71, 120 B read with sections 466 and 468 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the "Code").

The allegations which Jed to the trial are essentially t9 the effect that
appellant No.1 secured admission to the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram F
on the basis of forged mark-sheet. The appellant No. I had appeared for the
Second year Pre- Degree Examination held by the Kerala University and had
secured only a llnd class.

Having secured 513 out of I000 marks she could not have secured G
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 of92/200 she changed H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A it 162/200 with the forged mark-sheet. She was shown to have scorep 787/1000
instead of 513/ I000 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. I, 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
B 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. fhe Vlth Addi. (Spl.) Sessions
Judge. Thiruvananthapuram found accused guilty and sentenced the accused
C persons as follows:

"Al is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for I year each for
the offences u/s 42 I I.P.C, 466 I.P.C., 468 I.P.C. and 471 l.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 l.P.C. and 471 IP.C. No separate sentence
D 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."

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

E 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 hea1t patient and has undergone two
open heart surgeries. Her father, appellant no.2 is a retired Engineer and is
F 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
G for the respondent-State referred to an order passed by this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 608/2006 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
H had undergone only one week of custody. In the instant case, in case of
, BEENA PHILIPOSE v STATE OF KERA LA [PASAYAT, J.] 723

appellant no. I, against the imposed sentence of three months she has already A
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.
B
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 C
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.
D
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

D.G. Appeal disposed of.