Karnataka High Court
Dasharath vs State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF DECEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.334 / 2007
BETWEEN :
Dasharath
S/o Chowdappa
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.83/31, 2nd Cross,
Laggere Bus Stand,
Ring Road, Bangalore. .. Appellant
(By Sri H.P.Leeladhar, Advocate )
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Gowribidanur Rural Police,
Kolar District. .. Respondent
( By Sri B.T.Venkatesh, SPP II)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20.2.2007 passed by
the Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.No.55/2005 and
convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable
under Section 489-C of IPC and sentencing him to undergo
R.I. for a period of 5 years for an offence punishable under
Section 489-C of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- failing
which, he shall undergo R.I. for six months.
2
This Criminal Appeal is coming on for Final Hearing this
day, the Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The appellant (hereinafter referred to as `accused No.1) in S.C.No.55/2005 was tried along with accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B, C and D of IPC. The learned trial Judge acquitted accused No.2 of the aforestated offences. The learned trial Judge also acquitted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, B & D of IPC, but convicted accused No.1 of an offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC. Therefore, accused No.1 is before this Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for accused No.1 and the learned SPP for State.
It is the case of the prosecution that on getting credible information about circulation of counterfeit notes near Vidurashwatha of Gowribidanur Taluk, the police officials along with two independent panchas reached the bus stop of Vidurashwatha at about 8.00 a.m. on 24.9.2004 and found 3 two persons (later identified as accused Nos.1 & 2) standing near the bus stop, on seeing the police, they started running, police chased and apprehended them and seized counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.1. In view of conviction of accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 498-C of IPC, following points would arise for determination:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 24.9.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. near Vidurashwatha bus stand, accused No.1 was found in possession of 363 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination knowing or having reasons to believe that they are fake currency notes and with an intention to use the same as genuine currency notes, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC?
(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge has property appreciated evidence on record?
(iii) what order?
4
3. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused taking me through the evidence has made the following submissions:
(i) The learned trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proof of charges under Section 489-C of IPC against accused No.2 and therefore, on the basis of same evidence, the learned trial Judge should not have convicted accused No.1 for an offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC.
(ii) There are major discrepancies in evidence in proof of seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.1.
(iii) The independent witnesses examined to prove seizure of counterfeit currency notes from possession of accused No.1 have not supported the case of prosecution.
(iv) The evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officers is replete with major discrepancies. Therefore, 5 the conviction should not have been recorded on the basis of evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officers.
(v) The evidence on record does not disclose that mere glance of counterfeit currency notes could convince anyone to believe that they are fake/counterfeit currency notes. The prosecution has failed to establish necessary mens rea to prove an offence under Section 489-C of IPC (vide AIR 1979 SC 1705 - M.Mammutti -vs- State of Karnataka).
4. The learned SPP would justify the impugned judgment of conviction.
5. The independent witnesses viz., PW-5 -
S.M.Siddappa has not completely supported the case of prosecution. However, PW-5 has deposed that police officials apprehended accused No.1 and seized counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused No.1. PW-5 has not supported the later part of case of prosecution with regard to seizure of colour xerox 6 machine and printer from the possession of the accused. Therefore, he was treated hostile.
6. Accused No.1 was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 489-A, B & D of IPC. Therefore, even if there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW-5 regarding seizure of printer and Xerox machine which were used for manufacturing counterfeit currency notes, that would not have any bearing on evidence of PW-5 regarding seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused.
7. PW-1 Srinivasa, the then Constable of Gowribidanur Rural Police Station has deposed that raiding party lead by Sub-Inspector of Police of Gowribidanur police station reached Vidurashwatha bus stand; two persons were standing near the bus shelter; after seeing the police, they started running away from that place; police chased and caught hold of them; later they were identified as accused Nos.1 and 2. PW-1 has identified accused No.1 before trial Court. PW-1 has deposed they have seized 363 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of 7 accused No.1. They checked currency notes and found they were counterfeit currency notes. The counterfeit currency notes bear same serial numbers. They seized the same under mahazar as per Ex.P.2. He has deposed that in all there were 366 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination.
During cross-examination, an unsuccessful attempt was made to establish that place of incident is surrounded by the houses and there was a lapse on the part of police officers to secure the presence of witnesses from the locality. This is a case where accused was apprehended in a public place, therefore, there was no need to secure witnesses from the locality.
PW-2 Nagarajaiah has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as hostile witness. During cross-examination, he has not given evidence to support the case of prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is of no avail to prove the case of prosecution.
8
PW-3 Yellappa was working as Police Constabe of Gowribidanur Police Station. PW-3 has deposed that on the date of incident, he was one of the member of raiding party consisting of Circle Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police, two panchas and other police personnel; when the raiding party reached Vidurashwata bus stand, accused Nos.1 and 2 were standing near the bus stand; after seeing them, they started running away; police chased and apprehended accused No.1 who was holding a small gunny bag in which there were three bundles of fake currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and they were seized under mahazar marked as Ex.P-2.
During cross-examination of PW-3, an unsuccessful attempt was made to establish that on the date of incident PW-3 had gone to attend weekly parade, therefore, he could not have been a member of raiding party. If PW-3 had skipped the parade to be a part of raiding party, that cannot be a ground to discredit his evidence. Therefore, his evidence cannot be disbelieved.
9
PW-4 Nanjundagowda, Police Constable of Gowribidanur police station was also one of the member of raiding party. The evidence of PW-4 is similar to evidence of PW-3.
In the discussion made supra, I have referred to evidence of PW-5.
PW-6 -K.Vishwanatha was the Sub-Inspector of Gowribidanur police station. PW-6 has deposed that on 24.9.2004 at about 8.00 a.m. Circle Inspector told PW-6 that he had received credible information that some persons are trying to circulate fake currency notes near Viduraswatha. Therefore PW-6, Circle Inspector and other police officers formed a raiding team and reached the place of incident i.e., Vidurashwatha; after seeing police jeep, two persons standing near the bus stand started running away; they were chased and apprehended; later they were identified as accused Nos.1 and 2; accused No.1 was having gunny bag; they seized the bag. On examination, they found counterfeit currency notes in the bag. PW-6 had send the fake currency 10 notes M.O.Nos.1 to 3 to Bank Notes Press, Devas, Madhyapradesh for its opinion. The Technical officer, Ink Factory, Bank Note Press, Devas, Madhyapradesh had sent his opinion as per Ex.P-1.
During cross-examination, PW-6 has reiterated the version of apprehension of accused and seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.1.
PW-7 was the Circle Inspector of Police of Gowribidanur police station. The evidence of PW-7 is similar to evidence of PW-6. PW-7 has deposed that they had seized 363 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination from the possession of accused No.1.
During cross-examination, PW-7 has deposed that they had not secured witnesses from the locality where the accused were apprehended. In my considered opinion, there was no need to secure the presence of the local persons as the counterfeit currency notes were seized from the person of the accused and not from any enclosed place. 11
PW-8 was the Technical Officer, Ink Factory, Bank Note Press, Devas, Madhyapradesh. PW-8 has deposed that he received the counterfeit currency notes M.O.Nos.1 to 3 from the Investigation Officer, on examination of the same, he submitted the report stating that that the currency notes are fake currency notes.
8. Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused No.1 would submit that independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore evidence of Investigating Officer should be carefully scrutinized. I have made reference to evidence of PW-5, an independent witness who has supported the case of the prosecution in part. Even otherwise, evidence of Investigating Officer and other police officers does not suffer from any discrepancies. The evidence of independent police officials does not reveal that they had any grudge against accused. The accused was from Bangalore. The police officer did not know the accused before the date of incident. Therefore, there are no reasons to suspect their evidence. The police officer who had seized 12 the counterfeit currency notes has deposed that they suspected seized currency notes are counterfeit currency notes as they bear same serial numbers. This apart, the evidence of expert would also reveal that the notes had certain distinct features which would convince anyone to believe that they are counterfeit currency notes.
9. PW-8 has also deposed that certain distinct features were found in the currency notes which would make anyone to believed them as counterfeit currency notes; that main water mark i.e., Mahatma Gandhi's face was imitated; other water marks which are on the right side portion are missing; security thread is imitated; paper is also not the one used in genuine note. These features are sufficient to convince anyone that they are fake currency notes. In view of this, the prosecution has proved necessary ingredients to prove an offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC.
10. The learned trial Judge has acquitted accused No.2 of all the offences alleged and accused No.1 of the offences punishable under Section 489-A, B & D of IPC, convicted 13 accused No.1 of an offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC. The learned trial Judge has extended benefit of reasonable doubt to acquit accused No.1 of offences punishable under Section 489-A, B & D of IPC. However, that cannot be a ground to discard evidence of prosecution witnesses in proof of offence under Section 489-C of IPC. It is needless to state that ingredients of offences under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of IPC are distinct and different.
Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused No.1 relying upon a news paper report marked as Ex.D-1 submitted that as per the news paper report, accused No.2 was responsible for entire episode and he was the main culprit and the police in order to save accused No.2, have falsely implicated accused No.1. The law is fairly well settled that news paper report is a second hand secondary evidence and therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to discredit the evidence adduced before Court.
14
Thus, on re-appreciation of the evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-