IN ma men eouér or KARHATAKA
cmcurr BENCH A1' nmnwm S ~ A'
DATED THIS mg 7" mm or
wrong' 4
THE aoxrnm MR. Jusrmm
cnmnm.
wwmmv: V' V M A
1. THE swrra _ _
BY P SI HUKKERI POLICvE'SFA¥I'_I()I~§,
. - 'V * nrmnmm
(BY SR1, 12-;«.1{1 ; .c;o:1*KmIsiD1, ~H(_1'_»S;f?)
1' TA'&'..AVV"A _ «
I3/0 sg1v.BH§-MAPPA-~KEsARUR
; 389 CRC}$S,' 'GOKAK FALLS
~ Maw' AT CHA.fiI.iZ).URA VELLA
TQA. HEEKKERI, EDIST. BELGAUM
" .. nmpomamrr
'{By«..$fi.;T-Q73 KANNUI? 65 S MAHESH)
'c;§'L.A. 911.39 U/S.3'?8(1} & (3) cmac: BY THE STATE
V. P'. ma THE $'I'A'I'E PRAYING THAT mxs HOIWBLE comm
' MA? BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINS'I' TEE JUDGEMENT m'.25.7.2003 PASSED BY THE
' V» ...-JMF'C., HUKKER1, IN C.C.NO.369/01 -- ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDEKT/ACCUSED FOR THE} OFFENSE PIE}/3.420,
465, 466, 468, 471, 201 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
gall
THIS APPEAL comma on FOR FINAL s-:*.;:§;é;:2;'p:%c;
BAY, THE COURT DELIVEREB THE FOLLO§§f§N(}: V %
JUnGm£;gfi
The State is in éated V'
25.012003 in cc No.359/ 209-I"o:.zi !Ii€ 31¢ ofJM:?c; Hukkeri
acquitting the 1espofidé;;;t for offences
punishable unc;,;-gr secnfm:'42£>, _4(.'6,«~f¢"53, 471, 201 R/W
Sec. 34 of ' ' I AV
2." P. Gotkhjndi, learned Govt.
P1eadcf :?'o1'9 the the records. It reveals:
; 'One Talawar lodged report before
.' V. 'Afhé on 29.01.1999 alleging that the
L,_.fii~sgt'v:"t:$§fi«c§j;:tivéé1z,t:'5§'ayasrva 1)} o. Bhimappa Kesamr had forged
cfziffiin Ceffiiiltgatcs for sccuxing employment in the Social
"'..,WeIfa1t,§&::part£nent of the Government He alleged, she was
"ii having not studied in any school and was confined
domestic fife. He lmcw her and her family vczy W'8}I and
u was thus acquaizitezi with her life. Though $116 was illiterate,
she conniveé with a retired Head mastczr of Government
{/
Kannada Girls Primary School at Koujalagi to
certain' ccrtzfica' ms to Shaw she had studied
The complaint so submittzd .:wz:s:_ »' th¢_: '
jtxxisdictsional mag1'strate and nei%*nwed[, " ti_1 e:
invcsfigafion who filed cha1~Vg»e_V:L§£1cet. 1°' . L'
respondent/1*' accused. ~-- Tayavfia. <?;1tj'¢, bvangawa
(2nd respondent] 211′ for the chfirgcs
mferrtd abovtt .
3. –« Gangawa died and
was subjected to
trial, examined 11 Witnesses
and §;iocuments. The accused put up
fiyxfidcféince of simplicitor and also questioned veracity
.A jcaf fitatcment given by Yaznanappa Basapm
examined as PW2. She also
qiiasfi£3ficd:”‘i€Babifity of Exs.P4, P5, P6, F’? and P9.
4. The leamxzd Trial Judge accepted the contentions of
Vfthc 1″ accused that there was no clinching proof 1:9 establish
M
V
the charge for the ofiences indicated above and
1°’ accused, against which the State is in appe;-;1.- ‘ ‘
5. The learned Government
prosecution has S1lCC6SSfL111}7’3.%S’fi?§?)]iS}”1Cdg’L11$it ?1:ieA._1es_p9;’2Lden$_:t I
had studied only up 23″ uGo§¥4E:nt11_1:iet:tvvf§Kannada
Grits Primaxy Schoolv :5 “by PWS ..
Mahalingappa Shivapenafiga —“VHe also xefermd
to Exs.P10 had studied at
his in ‘ left. He relies on
Ex. — _ produced by the 1”
accusee; Welfare Department. With
referenee it is urged that 1*’ accused had
. V. epixeiueed that she had completed 7*” std. to
4vV’e3:;f;:fp}oyment, whexeas it is shown that she has
‘mm? Gmemment Kannada Girls Primary School at
Kaujaleugi. In fact in Ex.P7, the reference is ‘made to the
w$§1:iZ?iSSi€)f1 register skewing that entry S1.No.238 rekates to a
§g’r1 calied Shilpa and not the 1″ accused — Tayawa. He
submits that EXP’? has been issued on the basis of entries
in the admission regster found at Si.No.238. Ex.P’7 was a
§_/{L
concoctcd document. Since the signature of
Gangawa is found, the pmsecufiqp has tI:1at_it”.
was a forged document for thizu
employment. He submits tilaf the” >
incsriminating evidence and to the
other documents studied at
Government Kannada at Gokak. He
submits 8131; -if it shows she
had was not qualified to meet
the basic employment at Social
gtmnd, he seeks reversai of
the: judgxfienf of
V” f§Ft:”‘r1′]Ei\’?”_I’CS})(£}.&f’3IIt/ accusezd has been nofifised and is
-._ Vibday.
is an appeal against the acquittal Necessarily
V. apfiliant will have to establish the gonads convincingly
” reversal of the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
£94
8. The learned Trial Judge has; mamfiedv’ .4 V
order that the prosecufion was t*I?_. A’
establish that the 1′” actctzeedj 13′?” A.§ee§)oncieuiz§: L.
ftutherance of her common wifii No.2
Gangavva (since by
forgery at a place nea;f._ the said
wmmam Social Welfaxe
Departmentieg} Trial Judge has
rxoticedzj = Talawar, the
complaieaet the investigation commenced
was _be1atee{” V.1;1 A though the respondent was
the the complaint came to be fibd
Since the deiay in filing the xeport was
the complaint and also Em the evidenoe, the
Judge held it was fatal to the pmsecutien.
Secondly, the learned Trial Judge neiiceti that PVJ2
the complainant in his report had not named the 2″‘
VV accused, but had merely menfioned that 1°’ accused hm
conntisved with retired Head master of Government Kannada
Giris Primary School at Koujalagl In the evidence, for the
M
firs! time, he tried to improve earlier veI_fsi’u1é{
accusation against the 2″” accused. The
has also noticed that the
that the 13* accused was” >i1I_itera<1ie–A wsfi
domestic life and not seen the-. at. the V
prosecufion itself has to show
that the 1*' accused up to 21" std.
at Govemmept at Koujalagi.
The pro$gee1’§j;igifA1v’ – Smt. Neelawwa
_ and PW5 — Mahalingappa
spoken about the studies of
1′ .-leeused and had produced documents in
– Véfigch steiement That evidence was pzvdeced by
and was against the charge.
z .’ Lfhe learned Trial Jucige hekl that the &st
., afiegafiens that the rcspcmdent was flliterate shall fai} as it
=:–=V§es .€3h0xxrn that she had studied up to 2″” std. He proceeded
“en the premise that she was educated. The next chmge
raised by the prosecution was that she was not qualified to
be appointed as cook in Socia}. Welfame Department, but on
2.4;,
if
8 V.
misrepresentation that she was educated sh?
secured employment also was negated by
Judge on the basis that than-: wasizié A um ‘ ;,éti£>i1
pniscribcd to appoint a perscn as
Eepaxtment as in the year
has held the pmsecutio:-1″ prove date of
appointment of the 1;’ as in the Social
Wclfam Departs é fem, “jsosscss 1111mm’ ‘ um
vV.Gf–.thaVv;’ ‘1} g’ 73* standard. The
lcaxntfd. v ‘VV’13..q:’.i’tr£s:__i:(‘i from the over atta-m’ 11:’ g
rsijzoxds that as in the year 1999, the
dapsfifinant 4’41 std. as the basic eligibility for
.A not either 531 3111. at 7″‘ sm. Since the
71:’:a;1 faiicd to product notification of the
€}<j%'w:1:3::;t:x1.e1:1i' prescribing minimum educational standaxé fer
sash spiaoinhncnt, he held that the chargcz that he has
A' ;i11"si£:pmsented or being qualified was fake.
11. The icamcd Trial Judge also nomad that the
main acquisition against the accused to sustain charge for
offences under Section 420, , 468 was that she had
9
forged and produced Ex.P’7 before the Social Sfifeifare
Department ice secure job. But the gmsecution
EXP? from the said depaxtment omcers. The
was produced by PW8 – K. B. 0 i ‘V .
how he came to be in poseessien cf e the’
Consequently, it is held thateV’i’-here ‘zap >
was in fact submitted by the i” eccused to
the Social Welfaxe H such an
employment. ‘I’o reaee1_;1gee.,V Judge has
verified’ e\’?i§c§§enee~.’ivhic3;i_”V’siie§gvs that EX.P7 was not
found ‘_i’n’.’_ the E)epart1ne:n.t when the
invesfigafingé Vieited and none of the witnesses spake
V. euhmiited by the 1*” accused.
_ 1.9.” fact situation, the learned Trial Judge
V’3§”§}:_ee3accusation in: the complaint remained only as
ailegatieae and had not transformed into Eegal evidence to
‘V 13* accused fer ofienoe punishable under Sections
M 465, 466, 468 of IPC. M
13. The learned Government Pleader is
point out to any circumstances against the
by the iearned Sessions Judge to u
had conducted its investigation ex”
evidence placed before the the . L’
charges. in the cixeuxgnstancesgfiztxkaee that the
reasoning assigned by “i’:jza1:”;E11dge were against
the material ev;de11cev.e:; . :1feco3jdg_dr”v_thétv” the evidence on
moon} 1 the Eearhed Judge has
failffd <:'3€¥I1VSi(1¢V'f«;I':.V:»i'i_1<h}I'T'1II1I1" aspects in the evidence and
zeached ceilclusien, t'_1eV1£-"is no reason to interfere with such
also be netieed that the ofiicers ef the
Department had no yievahee against the
naecuee:3.A.:' Ne ofieial at any level in the deparment found the
éieeiimeeg if any submitted by 1" accused either forged,
or net genuine. It is only PW2 —- Yamanappa
Basappa Talwar claiming to be Social Worker lodged
complaint against 15* accused. Obviotlsly, he claimed to be
one who had first had information of the alleged forgery. '§'he
gel';/»
El
question is Why he kept quit: for 1 E yea:r§':" é:if;p<$4$cT't}i§:
respondent. Undoubtedly, it is
ccmspired action against the 1" ;f?'§Sfi}Q#1€1fiI1.t!g'_" T}1t'3
'F1131' Judge ugh' fly has noticcsi rr°co'.,
amrm the same. The a9pca1&.21asA.i 1o xéitid"is"'1;ejected.
Accordillglys the aggfigal =
Sd/-
IUDG E