BEENA PHILIPOSE AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 04-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
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 
'< ' 
• 
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 
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. 
B 
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 
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. 
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"). 
D 
E 
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 I 000 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/ I 000 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 sec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.