“Section 465 provides punishment for the commission of the offence of forgery. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 465, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed under Section 463, implying that ingredients under Section 464 should also be satisfied. Therefore unless and until ingredients under Section 463 are satisfied a person cannot be convicted under Section 465 by solely relying on the ingredients of Section 464, as the offence of forgery would remain incomplete.
Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof.
The key to unfold the present dispute lies in understanding: “the making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery”.
The definition of ‘false document’ is a part of the definition of ‘forgery’. Both must be read together; ‘forgery’ and ‘fraud’ are essentially matters of evidence which could be proved as a fact by direct evidence or by inferences drawn from proved facts.”
– Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj, [Criminal Appeal Nos. 359-360 of 2010].