Forgery Conviction Can't Sustain Sans Proof Of Authorship; Mens Rea Must Be Established Independently If Doc Accepted By Authority: J&K&L HC
Underscoring the foundational requirement of mens rea in criminal prosecution for forgery and corruption, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that even if the prosecution's version that a tampered document was used to secure a benefit is assumed to be correct, the mental element of the offence must still be independently proved.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar ruled that where a document has passed through institutional and administrative scrutiny and has been accepted by competent authorities, the absence of proof of dishonest intention or knowledge of falsity renders the prosecution's case incomplete, leaving the essential mental element unproven.
Relying on Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, the Court underscored that the mere execution of a document does not amount to forgery unless it is shown that the document was brought into existence by impersonation, unauthorised alteration, or through fraudulent means. A dishonest or false claim by itself, in the absence of such elements, does not render a document a “false document” in the eyes of the law, it added.
Background:
These observations arose from a Conviction appeal filed by a convict challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Srinagar. The appellant, an employee of Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS), had been convicted under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, and Sections 468 and 471 RPC, on allegations that he had secured two promotions by producing a fake matriculation certificate and by tampering with his Army Discharge Certificate to show a higher rank.
Appearing for the appellant, Mr. G.A. Lone, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate, assailed the conviction on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove authorship, possession, or use of any forged document by the appellant. It was contended that no original forged document was ever recovered, that the alleged matriculation certificate did not even pertain to the appellant, and that the promotions were approved by a duly constituted Selection Committee whose members were never examined.
Court's Analysis and Observations:
After minutely examining the entire trial record, Justice Parihar subjected the prosecution evidence to rigorous scrutiny and found it wanting on multiple counts. The Court noted that the prosecution case rested entirely on photocopies and remarked,
"...Exhibit NA/1, the alleged fake matriculation certificate, is admittedly only a photocopy. The prosecution has not recovered any original certificate from the appellant, nor has it been alleged that the appellant destroyed or concealed the original".
Crucially, the court also found that the alleged matriculation certificate pertained to a third person and not to the appellant, thereby breaking the very nexus between the document and the alleged benefit.
The Court also observed that the appellant, from the very inception of his service, had consistently disclosed his rank as Rifleman and his educational qualification as 9th standard and there was no evidence of any interpolation in his initial application. The promotions in question were approved by a duly constituted Junior Selection Committee after scrutiny of records, and none of its members were examined by the prosecution, despite being the most material witnesses on the issue of eligibility and selection, the court pointed.
Significantly, the Court found that the alleged interpolation in the Army Discharge Certificate was never proved by production of the original document or by expert evidence. The Army authorities did not attribute the alleged alteration to the appellant. In absence of proof of authorship or exclusive control over the document, the Trial Court, the High Court held, had erred in presuming guilt.
Relying upon recent Supreme Court precedent in AIR 2025 SC 4913 the High Court reiterated a crucial principle of criminal jurisprudence,
"Even if the prosecution version that the tampered document was used to secure admission is assumed to be correct, mens rea still must be independently established. Where the document has passed through administrative scrutiny and was stamped or accepted by competent authorities, absence of proof of dishonest intention or knowledge of falsity renders the prosecution case incomplete".
The Court further reiterated that the benefit of doubt must follow where two views are reasonably possible, that suspicion cannot take the place of proof, and that where direct evidence is absent, exclusive control and authorship of the forged document must be strictly proved.
Interpreting Sections 464, 470, and 471 RPC in the light of Supreme Court pronouncements, the Court held that unless impersonation, unauthorised alteration, or fraudulent procurement is proved, a document cannot be termed a “false document”. Mere irregularity or dishonest claim, without proof of forgery and mens rea, does not attract criminal liability, the bench underscored.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the essential ingredients of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the RPC were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holding that the conviction was founded on conjectures and that the burden of proof had been impermissibly shifted onto the accused, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of conviction and sentence were thus set aside.
Case Title: Gh. Rasool Ganie Vs State of J&K
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)