Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of strong evidence and the consistent application of legal principles in criminal trials. The Court stresses the need for corroboration, the principle of parity in treating co-accused, and the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases that rely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

In the case of Yogarani vs. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court Acquits Appellant in Passport Fraud Case Due to Lack of Evidence and Parity. The case centers on the conviction of Yogarani, who was accused of facilitating the issuance of a second passport to someone who already held a valid one. The Court closely examined the evidence and legal principles to assess whether the conviction could stand.

Case Background
The case revolves around allegations that Yogarani, through her travel agency, assisted an individual (referred to as accused No. 1) in obtaining a second passport. The prosecution claimed that accused No. 1 sought this second passport for better job prospects abroad and that Yogarani played a role in facilitating this process.
Several other individuals, including passport office employees and intermediaries, were implicated in the case. However, the trial court acquitted all other accused persons, including those directly involved in handling the passport.

The prosecution’s case against Yogarani relied primarily on the testimonies of three witnesses and circumstantial evidence. Key elements including
-Yogarani’s travel agency facilitated passport applications.
-The passport application for accused No. 1 was managed by Yogarani’s firm.
-The returned second passport allegedly contained Yogarani's handwriting.
and based on the above evidence, the trial court convicted Yogarani under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating and under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, for abetting the procurement of a passport through fraudulent means. The High Court upheld this conviction, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
however, on yoranai's handwriting, the Court held the following "This Court in catena of decisions has held that, without independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting experts cannot be solely relied upon to base the conviction".

Supreme Court's Observes inconsistencies and a lack of credibility in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. A key witness from Yogarani’s firm became hostile during the trial and did not provide any incriminating evidence against her. the Court also emphasized that the evidence presented, including handwriting analysis, lacked independent corroboration. The Court referred to previous rulings, asserting that expert opinions like handwriting analysis need corroboration to serve as a strong basis for conviction.

As per the Apex Court's alternative hypotheses, The prosecution failed to definitively establish how Yogarani came into possession of the second passport, especially given that the individuals accused of directly handling the document were acquitted.

On Principle of Parity: The Court highlighted the principle of parity in criminal law, asserting that when similar evidence is presented against multiple accused individuals, it is unjust to acquit some while convicting others based on weaker evidence. Since those accused of directly handling the passport were acquitted, it was inconsistent to convict Yogarani on a weaker basis and while refering to the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat
the court held that "10. The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons."

On Burden of Proof: The Court reaffirmed that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, they failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Yogarani had any knowledge of accused No. 1's existing passport or that she knowingly provided false information.

As a result of these findings, the Supreme Court acquitted Yogarani of all charges, overturning the decisions of both the trial court and the High Court. The Court concluded that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish that the appellant was involved in the alleged passport fraud.

Coram: Justice SANJAY KUMAR and Justice ARAVIND KUMAR
Between:Yogarani Vs State of Tamilnadu thr inspector of police
Date of Judgment: 23-09-2024