Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Passport Fraud Case: Yogarani vs. State (23 September 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 721
Judges: Sanjay Kumar, J., Aravind Kumar, J.
Can an individual be convicted for abetting a passport fraud when the primary accused and other accomplices have been acquitted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving allegations of fraudulently obtaining a second passport. The court examined the evidence and legal arguments to determine if the conviction of the appellant was justified. This judgment clarifies the importance of consistent application of evidence and the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in such cases.

Case Background

The case revolves around allegations that the appellant, Ms. Yogarani, facilitated the issuance of a second passport for Mr. J. Joseph, who already possessed a valid Indian passport. The prosecution contended that Mr. Joseph sought a second passport for better employment opportunities in Dubai, where his original passport was held by his employer. Ms. Yogarani, who ran a travel agency, allegedly processed Mr. Joseph’s application. The prosecution further alleged that the second passport was returned to the Passport Office in Trichy as undelivered. It was then allegedly retrieved by Ms. Sasikala (Accused No.3), an employee in charge of safe custody, and handed over to Ms. Yogarani through Mr. P. Manisekar (Accused No.4), a casual laborer at the Passport Office. The prosecution also claimed that Ms. Yogarani demanded Rs. 5,000 from Mr. Joseph for the passport, which he refused, leading to her returning it to the Passport Office by registered post.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge for CBI cases, Madurai, initially acquitted all accused persons of the charge of conspiracy. However, the trial court convicted Ms. Yogarani (Accused No.2) and Mr. J. Joseph (Accused No.1) for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 12 of the Passports Act. Mr. S. Raghupathy (Accused No.5) was convicted under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the appeals of Mr. Joseph and Mr. Raghupathy, acquitting them. Ms. Yogarani’s appeal was dismissed by the High Court, leading her to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions involved in this case are:

• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967: This section outlines offences and penalties related to passports. Specifically:
  • Section 12(1)(b): Deals with knowingly furnishing false information or suppressing material information to obtain a passport.
  • Section 12(2): Deals with abetment of any offence punishable under sub-section (1).

The prosecution’s case hinges on proving that Ms. Yogarani knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport by either providing false information or suppressing the fact that Mr. Joseph already possessed a passport.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that her conviction was unsustainable because:
  • Accused Nos. 3 and 4, who were charged with similar offenses, were acquitted, and their acquittal was not challenged.
  • Accused No. 1, for whose benefit the second passport was allegedly issued, was also acquitted.
  • The prosecution’s claim that Accused No. 3 illegally gave the passport to the appellant through Accused No. 4 was disbelieved by the trial court.
• The appellant argued that the testimony of PW-3, an employee of her travel agency, did not prove that the appellant knew about Mr. Joseph’s existing passport.
• The appellant argued that PW-3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s story.
• The appellant argued that the handwriting expert (PW-16) did not provide a definite opinion regarding the handwriting on the returned postal cover.
• The appellant argued that the testimony of PW-15 did not establish when the application of Mr. Joseph was received by the appellant and there was no evidence of payment of registration fees by the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that both the trial court and the High Court had properly evaluated the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellant had committed the offense.
• The respondent contended that there was no infirmity in the findings of the lower courts that warranted interference.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in highlighting the inconsistency in the prosecution’s case by pointing out the acquittal of other accused persons charged with similar offenses and the lack of concrete evidence against her.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant alone is sustainable when other accused persons charged with similar offenses have been acquitted.
2. Whether the evidence on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport by providing false information or suppressing material information.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat [2023 INSC 829]: The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that when there is similar evidence against multiple accused, the court cannot convict one and acquit others. This principle of parity was central to the court’s decision.
• Padum Kumar v State of Uttar Pradesh [(2020) 3 SCC 35]: The Supreme Court followed this case, reiterating that the opinion of a handwriting expert cannot be solely relied upon for conviction without independent corroboration.
• S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1996) 4 SCC 596]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court acknowledged that expert evidence is weak and not conclusive.
• Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab [(1977) 2 SCC 210]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court noted that it is unsafe to convict based solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration.
• Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 381]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court recognized that expert handwriting opinion is not a sufficient basis for conviction.
• Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa [AIR 1963 SC 1728]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court reiterated that expert evidence of handwriting is not conclusive.
• Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 529]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court noted that expert handwriting evidence cannot replace substantive evidence.
• Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [AIR 1967 SC 1326]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court cautioned against convicting solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert.
• Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [(1980) 1 SCC 704]: Cited in Padum Kumar, the court stated that corroboration may not be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Principle of Parity: The Court emphasized that when similar evidence is presented against multiple accused persons, the court cannot convict one while acquitting others. This principle of parity was a key factor in the acquittal of the appellant.
• Lack of Direct Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide direct evidence that the appellant had prior knowledge of Mr. Joseph’s existing passport or that she knowingly furnished false information. The court noted that the evidence of PW-3, PW-15 and PW-16 was not reliable or sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Weakness of Expert Testimony: The court reiterated that expert testimony, particularly handwriting analysis, is weak and requires substantial corroboration, which was lacking in this case.
• Burden of Proof: The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which the prosecution failed to do in this case.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates that issues related to evidence and procedure weighed heavily in the court’s decision.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the court was more influenced by legal principles and the lack of sufficient evidence rather than the specific factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the principle of parity and the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found it lacking in crucial aspects, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the appellant was guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. However, the court rejected this interpretation due to the lack of direct evidence, the unreliability of key witnesses, and the principle of parity which required consistency in the treatment of similarly placed accused persons. The court concluded that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden of proof, and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained.

The Supreme Court’s decision is that the appellant is acquitted of all charges. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport. The court emphasized that the principle of parity requires consistent application of evidence and that expert testimony must be corroborated by other evidence to be reliable.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Aravind Kumar. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity.”
• “It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the handwriting expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence.”
• “In the case on hand the prosecution failed to place any evidence to prove that the appellant had prior information of accused No.1 was already possessing a passport or knowingly had furnished false information to the passport authorities namely after knowing that accused No.1 had possessed or holding a passport was applying for second passport or having known the fact of accused No.1 possessing the passport was applying for the second passport and thereby there has been suppression of material information.”

Key Takeaways

• The principle of parity is crucial in criminal cases, ensuring that similarly placed accused persons are treated consistently.
• Expert testimony, particularly handwriting analysis, must be corroborated by other evidence to be considered reliable.
• The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Lack of direct evidence and inconsistent witness statements can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when there is similar evidence against multiple accused, the court cannot convict one and acquit others. The principle of parity should be applied. This case reinforces the importance of consistent application of evidence and the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. This judgment also reiterates the principle that expert testimony, particularly handwriting analysis, is weak and requires substantial corroboration, which was lacking in this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Ms. Yogarani highlights the importance of the principle of parity and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fairness and consistency in the application of law.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories:

• Passport Fraud
• Abetment
• Principle of Parity
• Expert Testimony
• Burden of Proof

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Passports Act, 1967
Child Category: Section 12, Passports Act, 1967

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Yogarani vs. State case?

A: The main issue was whether Ms. Yogarani could be convicted for abetting a passport fraud when the primary accused and other accomplices were acquitted, and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: What is the principle of parity, and how did it apply in this case?

A: The principle of parity means that when there is similar evidence against multiple accused persons, the court should treat them consistently. In this case, since other accused persons charged with similar offenses were acquitted, the Supreme Court held that Ms. Yogarani should also be acquitted.

Q: Why was the handwriting expert’s testimony not considered conclusive?

A: The Supreme Court reiterated that expert testimony, especially handwriting analysis, is weak and requires substantial corroboration. In this case, the expert’s opinion was not definite and lacked independent corroboration, so it could not be the sole basis for conviction.

Q: What does it mean for the prosecution to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

A: “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard of proof required in criminal cases. It means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince the court that there is no other logical explanation for the facts except that the accused committed the crime.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment reinforces the importance of consistent application of evidence and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It also highlights that expert testimony alone is not sufficient for conviction and that the principle of parity should be applied when dealing with multiple accused persons.