Bangalore District Court
Chaduranga Kanteraj Urs vs N.G.Raju @ Govinda Raju on 22 January, 2024
C.C.18143/2013
KABC030688852013
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU
PRESENT : Sri. Vijeth. V., B.A.L., LL.B.,
39th A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
CRIMINAL CASE NO: 18143/2013
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2024
BETWEEN :
COMPLAINANT : The State by,
Sadashivanagar Police Station
(By learned APP)
Accused : 1. N.G.Raju @ Govinda Raju,
S/o Late S. Narasimharaju,
Aged about 42 years.
R/at No-2, 2nd Main, 15th Cross,
Gayathri Devi Park, Vyalikaval,
Bangalore.
2. Revamma,
W/o Late S. Narasimharaju,
Aged about 81 years, (Dead)
[Rep. by- Sri. K. S. Narayanaswamy
Advocate]
1. Date of offences : 23.01.2012
2. Date of report : 05.01.2013
3. Name of the complainant : Sri. Chaduranga Kanteraj
Arus
2
C.C.18143/2013
4. Date of recording evidence : 24.09.2021
5. Date of closure of evidence : 15.07.2023
6. offences alleged : U/Sec.420, 511, 120B of
IPC
7. Opinion of the judge : Acquittal
(Vijeth .V)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru.
: JUDGEMENT :
The PSI, Sadashivanagar Police Station has submitted the present charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec 420, 511, 120B of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:
That on 23.01.2012 the accused No.1 and 2 being son and mother have created forged gift deed with respect to property belongs to the family of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5 bearing Municipal No.17, 16th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Ward No.99, Bangalore measuring 43,264 Sq. Ft. which is located at east of Sadashivanagar Club, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore and tried to get the property unlawfully and made conspiracy. As such a complainant has been lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.1.3
C.C.18143/2013
3. A Case is registered in Sadashivanagar Police Station as Crime No.02/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sec. 420, 511, 120B of IPC and this court has taken cognizance for the above said offences.
4. The accused No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and they have been enlarged on bail. During the pendency of proceedings accused No.2 died as such a case against the accused No.2 is abated by the order of this court dated 10.09.2015. Prosecution papers were furnished to accused No.1 as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard both sides, charge has been framed, read over and explained the contents to accused No.1 in the language known to him, wherein the accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it has examined 07 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked Ex.P- 1 to Ex.P.9 documents. After completion of prosecution evidence statement of accused No.1 as required under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is recorded, read over and 4 C.C.18143/2013 explained to accused No.1 in the language known to him, wherein the accused No.1 denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him.
6. Heard arguments and perused the material on record.
7. The following points that arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that on 23.01.2012 the accused No.1 and 2 being son and mother have created forged gift deed with respect to property belongs to the family of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5 bearing Municipal No.17, 16th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Ward No.99, Bangalore measuring 43,264 Sq. Ft. which is located at east of Sadashivanagar Club, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore and tried to get the property unlawfully and made conspiracy, as such he has committed offence punishable U/s.420, 511, 120B of IPC?
2. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : As per the final Order.
for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: It is the case of the prosecution that, on 23.01.2012 the accused No.1 and 2 being son and mother 5 C.C.18143/2013 have created forged gift deed with respect to property belongs to the family of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5 bearing Municipal No.17, 16th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Ward No.99, Bangalore measuring 43,264 Sq. Ft. which is located at east of Sadashivanagar Club, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore and tried to get the property unlawfully and made conspiracy.
10. According to the prosecution Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is a witness to spot panchanama, Pw3 and Pw5 are said to be the joint owners of alleged property along with Pw1. Pw4 is legal advisor of family of Pw1, Pw6 is the Sub-Registrar of Gandhi Nagar, Hebbala, Bangalore, Pw7 is the investigating officer who has submitted charge sheet.
11. The prosecution has produced and got marked Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot panchanama, Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of gift deed dated 23.02.2012 executed by deceased accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1. Ex.P.4 is the encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.5 is the tax paid receipt dated 17.01.2012, Ex.P.6 is the khatha extract pertaining to property ID No.99-62-17 dated 17.01.2012, Ex.P.7 is the khatha certificate pertaining to property ID No.99-62-17 dated 17.01.2012, Ex.P.8 is the khatha certificate pertaining to PID 6 C.C.18143/2013 No.99-62-17 dated 17.01.2012, Ex.P.9 is the khatha extract pertaining to property ID No.99-15-17.
12. In support of the case of prosecution it has examined Cw1 / Chaduranga Kantheraj Arus examined as PW- 1, who deposed before the court that himself and his sisters are the owners of property bearing Municipal Khatha No.17 measuring 211 x 211 ft situated at 6 th Cross, Ward No.99, Sadashivanagar. The said property came to his grandmother and thereafter came to his father. That on 16.01.2000 the witness Cw1, his father and his three sisters have partiioned the property in which the witness and his sisters jointly acquired share over the property. The old survey number of above said property is No.2. They have verified the encumbrance certificate and other documents pertaining to the said property in December-2012. When they verified the documents they found that the khatha of said property is unlawfully entered in to the name of accused No.2 N. G. Raju. After thorough verification, they found that accused No.2 got transferred the property from the name of his mother through gift deed by concocting the documents. In the year 2012 one Kumar who is said to be a real estate business man called him through phone and threatened that the property is not belongs to the family of 7 C.C.18143/2013 complainant and they have to leave the property. The complainant lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 in January-2013. The police have visited the spot and drawn spot panchanama in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8 are the forged gift deed, encumbrance certificate, property tax receipt, Khatha extracts. Ex.P.9 is the original khatha extract pertaining to the disputed property which is standing jointly in the name of complainant and his sisters which is marked at Ex.P.9. He has not seen the accused No.1 and 2. He has seen the reals estate business man who has threatened him and he has given further statement to the police.
In the cross-examination the witness stated that he has personally prepared the complaint marked at Ex.P.1. He has produced documents to the police to show that his grandmother Smt. Leelavathidevi acquired the property from Maharaja. But the said document is not before the court. His grandfather executed a gift deed in favour of his grandmother with respect to property measuring 1 acre in the month of May-1958. But the said gift deed is no before the court. The witness further stated that he came to know about the change of khatha in December-2012 and he personally verified the encumbrance certificate and found the name of accused No.1 N. G. Raju. The 8 C.C.18143/2013 witness further stated that he has seen the alleged documents in December-2012 and lodged complaint on 05.01.2013 with delay as he was not in Bangalore. The witness further admitted that he had filed O.S.25580/2013 before the Hon'ble City Civil Court regarding the gift deed executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.1. The witness further admitted that the said case is still pending. He received threatening call from phone number i.e., 8129936616 belonged to one Kumar from Kerala. He had seen said Kumar twice who visited the office of complainant. The witness admitted that on 02.03.2013 when he gave further statement to the police he has stated that the PID number of the property belonged to the complainant and the PID number of property trasfered to the name of accused No.1 is different. The witness further admitted that the property bearing PID No.99-15-17 still standing in his name. The property bearing PID number 99-62-17 is standing in the name of accused originally belonged to one Muddasab Mallik which was transferred illegally to the name of accused No.1.
13. Cw3 / V. Shivarudraiah examined as Pw2 deposed before the court that on 10.01.2013 Sadashivanagar Police have visited near Eshwar Temple and Brundavan situated at Ward No.99 and drawn spot panchanama in the place shown by 9 C.C.18143/2013 the complainant between 4.30 to 5.30 pm which is marked at Ex.P.2 to which he is a signatory.
In the cross-examination the witness stated that he is residing at Gayatri Nivas which is situated at a distance of 2 K.m. from the place of panchanama. The police have not issued any notice to him before drawing panchanama. He knows the complainant since 20 years and he is working under complainant. He has not verified the documents pertaining to the place of panchanama and he do not know completely about the facts of the case.
14. Cw4 / Smt. Keerthimalinidevi examined as Pw3 deposed before the court that Cw1 is her younger brother, Late. Ramachandraraj Aras was her father. Her father had four children i.e., Cw1, the witness Cw4, Cw5 and one Smt. Dipamalinidevi. The witness along with her brother and sisters are the owners of property bearing Municipal Khatha No.17 situated at 16th Cross in Ward No.99 Sadashivanagar measuring 211 x 211 ft. The said property was acquired by her grandmother and thereafter it was acquired by her father. On 16.01.2000 the witness along with her father and siblings have partitioned the property. She is one of the joint owner of the said property. Her father acquired the property from his mother 10 C.C.18143/2013 Smt. Lilavathidevi. Smt. Lilavathidevi acquired the property from grand father of Cw4 by name Jayachamarajendra Odeyar. There is grave of her mother Smt. Gayatridevi and graves of her grandmother namely Smt. Lilavathidevi and Smt. Jayalakshmammani. They used to offer prayers to said graves every Monday since 50 years. Cw6 verified the encumbrance certificate and other documents pertaining to the property in December-2012 and found that the documents were forged and transferred to the name of accused persons by using concocted documents. In February-2012 accused No.1 concocted a gift deed from his mother as per documents. One Kumara who was said to be a real estate businessman threatened Cw1 in the year 2012 through phone stating that the property belongs to them. The said fact was informed by Cw1. The Cw1 lodged complaint in January-2013. Accused No.1 and 2 have concocted and forged the documents in order to cheat the complainant and his family members. They have entered into joint development agreement with embassy group. She has given statement to the investigating officer.
In the cross-examination the witness stated that initially the property was belongs to Sri. Jayachamarajendra Odeyar. There is a gift deed through which her grandmother Smt. 11 C.C.18143/2013 Lilavathidevi acquired the property from Maharaja Sri. Jayachamarajendra Odeyar. She has not handed over the said document to the investigating officer, but Cw1 has handed over the same to the investigating officer. She has verified encumbrance certificate in December-2012 except the said document she has not verified any other documents.
15. Cw5 / Smt. Tripurasundaridevi examined as Pw5 deposed before the court that Cw1 is her younger brother, Cw4 is her younger sister, Late. Ramachandraraj Aras was her father. Her father had four children i.e., Cw1, the witness Cw4, Cw5 and one Smt. Dipamalinidevi. The witness along with her brother and sisters are the owners of property bearing Municipal Khatha No.17 situated at 16th Cross in Ward No.99 Sadashivanagar measuring 211 x 211 ft. The said property was acquired by her grandmother and thereafter it was acquired by her father. On 16.01.2000 the witness along with her father and siblings have partitioned the property. She is one of the joint owner of the said property. Her father acquired the property from his mother Smt. Lilavathidevi. Smt. Lilavathidevi acquired the property from grand father of Cw4 by name Jayachamarajendra Odeyar. There is grave of her mother Smt. Gayatridevi and graves of her grandmother namely Smt. 12 C.C.18143/2013 Lilavathidevi and Smt. Jayalakshmammani along with Narmadeshwara Temple and Shivalinga. They used to offer prayers to said graves every Monday since 50 years. Cw6 verified the encumbrance certificate and other documents pertaining to the property in December-2012 and found that the documents were forged and transferred to the name of accused persons by using concocted documents. In February-2012 accused No.1 concocted a gift deed from his mother as per documents. The Cw1 lodged complaint in January-2013. Accused No.1 and 2 have concocted and forged the documents in order to cheat the complainant and his family members. They have entered into joint development agreement with embassy group. She has given statement to the investigating officer.
In the cross-examination the witness deposed that her grandfather executed gift deed to the name of her grandmother on 28.05.1958. Her grandmother Lilavathidevi died on 28.05.1958 evening. She has seen the said gift deed. Her father acquired the property through inheritance. The number of disputed property is 99-15-17. The khatha of said property stands in the name of Cw1. She has not seen the gift deed said to have been executed by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1. She has not seen the khatha extract of the property 13 C.C.18143/2013 standing in the name accused No.2. The witness admits pendency of civil case bearing O.S.No.25580/2013 with respect to the disputed property.
16. Cw6 - B.S. Mohan examined as Pw4 deposed before the court that he is working as legal advisor in embassy groups since 1999. He knows Cw1 since 2006. Cw1 has executed joint development agreement in favour of embassy groups with respect to property bearing No.17, Ward No.99, Sy.No.2. He used to collect encumbrance certificate with respect to disputed property every year. On 15.05.2012 when he collected encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar office he found that a gift deed was executed by second accused in favour of first accused. He brought it to the notice of Cw1. He knows that the said property was ancestral property of Cw1. He has collected the gift deed from the Sub-Registrar office and handed over to Cw1. He knows about the fact that accused No.1 and 2 in order to gain unlawfully concocted and forged documents. He has given statement before the police.
In the cross-examination the witness stated that he is the legal advisor of Cw1. On 15.05.2012 he has obtained encumbrance certificate from Sub-Registrar officer, Gandhi Nagar. He has collected gift deed from the Sub-Registrar office. 14
C.C.18143/2013 He has informed the same to Cw1 within four-five days. The property said to have gifted by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1 was standing in the name accused No.2. On the basis of same it was gifted to accused No.1 as per the recitals. He has seen the gift deed pertaining to the family of complainant and allotment letter. The gift deed was executed by grandmother of Cw1 by name Smt. Lilavathidevi in favour of father of Cw1. He do not remember in which year the grandmother of Cw1 executed gift deed.
17. Cw11 - Smt. Sumithra, Sub-Registrar, Gandhi Nagar, (Hebbal), Bangalore examined as Pw6 deposed before the court that on 11.03.2013 she has received a requisition from Sadashivanagara Police Station seeking the copies of some documents. She has handed over the documents pertaining to document No.4495/2011-12, E.C. from 01.04.2004 to 17.03.2013 and other annexed documents.
In the cross-examination the witness admitted that one can sell or transfer the document only if he is having khatha in his name. Sh was not the Sub-Registrar of Gandhi Nagar at the time of execution of alleged documents.
18. Cw13 - H. P. Sharath Kumar examined as Pw7 deposed before the court that on 27.04.2013 he has received 15 C.C.18143/2013 the file from Cw12 for further investigation. On 29.08.2013 he has recorded statements of Cw4 and Cw5 and after completion of investigation he has submitted charge sheet to the court.
In the cross-examination the witness stated that he has not collected the documents pertaining to the family of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5 during his investigation it was collected by the another investigating officer who was investigated the matter earlier to him. He has produced the document along with charge sheet to show that the complainant was the owner of property. The witness admitted that on 05.02.2013 the khatha extract was collected by Cw12 and in the said document the name of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5 is not appearing in the owner column and one Mudashirmallik was shown as owner. He has not issued any notice to said Mudashirmallik. He has not enquired about the pendecny of civil dispute between Cw1 and accused persons.
19. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution examined 07 witnesses out of its list of 13 witnesses. According to the case of the prosecution Pw1 is the complainant who deposed be fore the court that himself and his sisters are the owners of property bearing Municipal Khatha No.17 measuring 211 x 211 ft situated at 6th Cross, Ward No.99, Sadashivanagar. The said 16 C.C.18143/2013 property came to his grandmother and thereafter came to his father. That on 16.01.2000 the witness Cw1, his father and his three sisters have partitioned the property in which the witness and his sisters jointly acquired share over the property. The old survey number of above said property is No.2. They have verified the encumbrance certificate and other documents pertaining to the said property in December-2012. When they verified the documents they found that the khatha of said property is unlawfully entered in to the name of accused No.2 N. G. Raju. After thorough verification, they found that accused No.2 got transferred the property from the name of his mother through gift deed by concocting the documents. In the year 2012 one Kumar who is said to be a real estate business man called him through phone and threatened that the property is not belongs to the family of complainant and they have to leave the property. The complainant lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 in January-2013. The police have visited the spot and drawn spot panchanama in the presence of witnesses as per Ex.P.2. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8 are the forged gift deed, encumbrance certificate, property tax receipt, Khatha extracts. Ex.P.9 is the original khatha extract pertaining to the disputed property which is standing jointly in the name of complainant and his sisters 17 C.C.18143/2013 which is marked at Ex.P.9. He has not seen the accused No.1 and 2. He has seen the reals estate business man who has threatened him and he has given further statement to the police. It is significant to note that Pw3 and Pw4 who are none other than own sisters of Pw1 and who are said to be the joint owners of the alleged property also deposed in the similar fashion. It is significant to note that as per the complaint accused No.1 who got transferred the property bearing municipal No.17, 16th cross, Sadashivanagar, Ward No.99, Bangalore measuring 43264 Sq.Ft. Located in east of Sadashivanagar Club, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore fraudulently and gifted the same in favour of accused No.1 who is the son of accused No.2 through gift deed dated 23.02.2012 and also it is the case of the prosecution that the alleged property was acquired by the family of complainant through a gift deed executed in the month of May 1958 said to have executed by his highness Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Odeyar and subsequently it was partitioned between the Cw1 and his siblings on 16.01.2000. But even though in the cross- examination Cw1 stated that he has produced the gift deed before the investigating officer, but said vital document is not produced before the court. Further the prosecution has 18 C.C.18143/2013 produced and got marked Ex.P.3 to 8 documents. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of gift deed executed by accused no.2 Revamma in favour of accused No.1 N. G. Raju on 23.02.2012 pertaining to property i.e., piece and parcel of portion of immovable property in Sy.No.2 situated at portion of palace, orchards, rajamahal village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring east to west 219 ft north to south 210 ft along with small constructed temple bearing new municipal No.17 old ward No.99, new ward No.35, 16 th Cross, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore bearing CTS No.895. Ex.P.4 is the encumbrance certificate dated 22.02.2013 which reveals that accused No.2 N. G. Raju executed an agreement of sale in favour of K. Sathish Kumar. Ex.P.5 is the property tax receipt pertaining to PID No.99-62-17, Ex.P.6 is copy of khatha extract pertaining to PID No.99-62-17 measuring 45999 Sq. Ft. situated at upper palace orchades standing in the name of Revamma i.e.,. accused No.2. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are the khatha certificate pertaining to PID No.99-62-17, Ex.P.9 is the khatha extract of PID No.99-15-17 measuring 43264 Sq. Ft. standing jointly in the name of Cw1, Cw4 and Cw5. When we meticulously gone through the complaint marked at Ex.P.1 and the documents marked at Ex.P.3 to Ex.P..9 it is crystal clear that 19 C.C.18143/2013 the PID number of property said to have belongs to family of complainant is PID No.99-15-17 and the PID number of the property which was gifted by accused No.2 in faovur of accused No.1 is PID No.99-62-17. Moreover as the complaint marked at Ex.P.1 the property said to have belongs to the family of complainant is measuring 43264 Sq. Ft. But the property standing in the name of accused No.2 as per Ex.P.6 is 45990 Sq. Ft. Both the PID numbers and measurements of the properties standing in the name of family members of complainant and family members of accused persons are contrary and not the same. Even the complainant in his cross- examination admitted that in the further statement given by him before the police on 02.03.2013 he has stated that the PID numbers of both properties are different. Further the complainant in his cross-examination deposed before the court that the property i.e., PID No.99-62-17 was earlier standing in the name of one Muddasabmallik, but said Muddasabmallik is not the complainant in the present case nor he is cited as a witness. As such the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the property gifted by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1 and the property said to be belongs to the family of complainant are one and the same. This is one aspect. 20
C.C.18143/2013
20. When we gone through the complaint it is alleged by the complainant that a person who is acting on the instruction of accused No.1 and 2 said to have threatening Cw1 through phone calls and also through SMS and the said number through which the said calls and messages were forwarded is 918129936616. In the cross-examination the witness stated that he came to know that one Kumara of Kerala used to make threatening calls to him and the complainant also seen him twice when said Kumara visited the office of Cw1. But the complainant in further statement clearly stated that the said Kumara has not made any threatening calls to him which was also deposed by Cw1 in the cross examination. If at all the allegation of threatening was made the investigating officer ought to have made the said person as a accused in the case, but the investigating officer has made the said person as Cw7, but in spite of opportunity the prosecution has failed to examine the said person before the court. As such the question of threatening from the side of accused persons is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. This is another aspect.
21. Further it is significant to note that Pw4 is said to be the legal adviser of the family of complainant and also legal 21 C.C.18143/2013 advisor of embassy group deposed before the court that he has collected the encumbrance certificate on 15.05.2012 and he has intimated the same within four to five days to the complainant. But the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 05.01.2013. But the complainant has not given proper and satisfactory reason for lodging of complaint with delay of eight months. This is one of the major drawback to the case of the prosecution.
22. It is significant to note that as the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the property said to be gifted by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.1 are one and the same and also there is a delay of eight months which is not properly explained by the prosecution and also as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 nor his henchmen threatening the complainant nor given cogent and convincing evidence regarding conspiracy, as such the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
23. Point No.2: In view of my findings on Point No.1 in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following: 22
C.C.18143/2013 :ORDER:
Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 511, 120B of IPC.
His bail bond and surety bond stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly to the computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 22nd Day of January 2024).
(Vijeth .V) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Number of witnesses examined for Prosecution:
Pw1 : Chaduranga Kanteraj Arus Pw2 : V. Shivarudraiah Pw3 : Keerthimalinidevi Pw4 : B. S. Mohan Pw5 : Tripura Sundaridevi Pw6 : Sumitra K. H. Pw7 : Sarat Kumara H. P.
Number of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
Nil List of documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint,
Ex.P.2 : Spot panchanama,
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of gift deed,
Ex.P.4 : Encumbrance certificate,
Ex.P.5 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.6 : Khatha extract
Ex.P.7 : Khatha certificate
23
C.C.18143/2013
Ex.P.8 : Khatha certificate
Ex.P.9 : Khatha extract
List of documents exhibited for Defence :
Nil Material objects Marked:
Nil Digitally signed by VIJETH V VIJETH V Date: 2024.01.23 17:21:47 +0530 (Vijeth .V) XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU.