Bangalore District Court
The State By P.S.I vs K.N.Ramesh S/O Nanjundaiah on 19 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU
Present
Sri.Patil Veeranagouda S.,
B.Com. LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 19th Day of April, 2022
C.C. No.16028/2012
Complainant:
The State by P.S.I.
Cubbon Park Police Station
(By Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Versus
Accused:
1. K.N.Ramesh s/o Nanjundaiah
Age 37 years, r/at Kerevalagerahalli
Mayasandra Post, Turuvekere Post
Tumkur Dist.
2. D.Girish s/o S.Dharmalingappa
Age 42 years, r/at Vadavanghatta
Mugaluru Post, Mayasandra Hobli
Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur Dist.
(By Sri.K.B.K.Swamy, Advocate for A1)
(By Sri.K.N.Shashidhar, Advocate for A2)
2 C.C.No.16028/2012
PARTICULARS U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 16028/2012
2. The date of commission 20062008 to 20122008
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant B.R.Galagali
4. Name of the accused K.N.Ramesh and another
5. The offence complained of U/s. 419, 465, 468, 471, 420
or proved r/w 34 of IPC
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his/her examination
7. Final Order Accused No.1 and 2 are
convicted
8. Date of such order 19042022
JUDGMENT
The Police SubInspector of Cubbon Park Police Station has filed the final report against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s. 419, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
3 C.C.No.16028/2012
2. The prosecution case is that the accused No.1 applied for for the post of Civil Constable as per the notification dated 20062008 by filing application No.129553 on 19072008. Thereafter, the accused No.2 pretending himself as accused No.1 attended the written examination on 31082008 and in the OMR answer sheet No.822107 he has put his thumb impression and also forged the signature of K.N.Ramesh in the attendance sheet and has cheated the Police Department by producing forged documents as genuine documents knowing that they were forged and thereby accused No.1 has selected for the post of Civil Police Constable. Therefore, CW1 lodged first information statement before the Cubbon Park Police. The said police have registered the case and issued FIR. Thereafter, both the accused appeared before this court by obtaining anticipatory bail and got enlarged on regular bail. After 4 C.C.No.16028/2012 investigation the IO has filed the charge sheet against both the accused for the above said offences.
3. After taking the cognizance this court has issued summons to both the accused. In pursuance of summons both the accused have appeared. The prosecution papers furnished to them in compliance of sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing both side, my predecessor in office has framed the charges, read over and explained to both the accused and they pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked seven documents as per Ex.P.1 to 7. Inspite of taking coercive steps the prosecution has not secured CW2 and 3.
6. Thereafter, both the accused were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. to enable them to explain the incriminating evidence 5 C.C.No.16028/2012 appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and not chosen to lead their defence evidence.
7. Heard both side, perused the material available on record, the points that arise for my determination are:
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that in furtherance of their common intention the accused No.2 applied for Civil Police Constable job by filing his application No.129553 on 19072008, thereafter on 3108 2008 the accused No.2 pretending himself as accused No.1 and cheated by personation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/s.419 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of their common intention in the OMR Answer sheet No.822107 the accused 2 put his thumb impression and 6 C.C.No.16028/2012 forged the signature of accused No.1 (K.N.Ramesh) in the attendance sheet and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.465 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of their common intention the accused 2 forged the attendance sheet intending that shall be used for the purpose of cheating and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 468 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of their common intention the accused 2 fraudulently used OMR Sheet and attendance sheet as genuine document, which he knew it to be forged document and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 471 r/w 34 of IPC?7 C.C.No.16028/2012
5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, in furtherance of their common intention the accused 1 and 2 cheated Police Department and Government by dishonestly inducing them to get job for accused No.1 and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC?
6. What order?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : In the negative
Point No.4 : In the negative
Point No.5 : In the negative
Point No.6 : As per final order for the following:
8 C.C.No.16028/2012
REASONS
9. Points No.1 to 5: In order to avoid repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken all these points together for common consideration for sake of brevity.
10. In this case the first informant examined as PW1, the PSI who has registered the case and partly investigated the matter handed further investigation to further IO as PW2, the subsequent IO who has investigated the matter and after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against both the accused as PW3.
11. PW1 being the first informant has deposed that in the year 2009 he was working as Administrator in the office of Police Commissioner. On 20062008 the notification was issued for the appointment of 1110 CPC and WPC and application were called for. On 31082008 the written exam 9 C.C.No.16028/2012 and from 03112008 to 20122008 the physical efficiency test were conducted. Thereafter, the provisional list of candidates was prepared and the OMR application sheet, answer sheet, physical efficiency test paper were sent to Finger Print Division with a request to compare the same and give their report. In the said report the Finger Print of accused No.1 on OMR Application Sheet, OMR Answer Sheet and Physical Efficiency Test result sheet were not tallying in the report. In this regard DIG Recruitment and Training Division wrote a letter and instructed him to take action, accordingly on 19022009 he filed first information report as per Ex.P1 and his signature is at Ex.P1(b) along with the first information he has also furnished the OMR application sheet, answer sheet and the report of physical efficiency sheet and the copy of the letter written by DIG Recruitment and Training Division which were marked at Ex.P3 to P6.
10 C.C.No.16028/2012
12. During the cross examination made by advocate for accused No.1 he stated that prior to filing Ex.P1 he has gone through the points mentioned therein. He admits that in the page No.1 of Ex.P1 it is mentioned as 9 enclosures whereas in page No.2 of which it is mentioned as 6 enclosures. He also admits that in Ex.P1 except the date all remaining aspect was computerized. The office of appointment of the police staff comes in the office COD CARTON office, Palace Ground. His office is comes at Infantry Road, the appointment notification was issued by DIGP Recruitment and Training. All procedures with regard to recruitment will take place in the office of Commissioner but he has no idea about the procedure of recruitment and examination.
13. Prior to lodging Ex.P1 he has not enquired that in which examination center the accused No.1 was attended the exam and he has also not known the same through IO. He admits 11 C.C.No.16028/2012 that the office of Police Commissioner and the office of Recruitment of Police were comes under different limits of the police station. Prior to lodging the first information he has not met DIGP Training and Recruitment and got any information. He admits that the annexures to Ex.P1 not came to him personally. The authorised officer has orally instructed him to lodge Ex.P1. In the hall ticket there is photograph, name and address and the serial number of application of the candidate were mentioned. He volunteers that the thumb impression of the candidate also taken on the same. Prior to lodging Ex.P1 he has not verified hall ticket of the accused No.1. He admitted that the hall ticket ledger having photographs of the candidate was brought to all the examination centers. He also admits that in order to avoid mall practice there will be videography of the examination. He further admits that prior to lodging Ex.P1 12 C.C.No.16028/2012 he has not verified the said videography but he further stated that the concerned officer has verified.
14. PW1 further admitted that the office of Police Superintendent, Finger Print Division, in his letter at AnnexureA in the remarks it is mentioned that the finger print of candidates in application, answer sheet, PST and PET sheet were not visible so they were unfit for comparison. He also admitted that for the recruitment of 200809 they have received more than 35000 applications. Out of 1110 vacancies only 1051 candidates were selected as per the merit list. He has not annexed with Ex.P1 about the particulars of all 1051 candidates who were selected. Prior to filing Ex.P1 he has not enquired the Supervisor mentioned in Ex.P4. To the suggestion that he has not personally verified the facts he stated that it was verified by the concerned officer. At the time of taking signature and thumb impression of candidates during 13 C.C.No.16028/2012 examination center some times by mistake the wrong reports were received. In the PET and the medical test there is no mismatch of the thumb impression of accused No.1. He denied the suggestion that due to hurry and mistake of the Invigilator the said mistake was occurred but as per the say of his higher officer he has filed false case against the accused.
15. The advocate for accused No.2 submits no cross examination to the PW1.
16. PW2 being the PSI of Cubbon Park PS deposed that on 23022009 at 12.30 p.m., PW1 lodged first information as per Ex.P1 on the basis of which he has registered the FIR as per Ex.P2. Along with the Ex.P1 the PW1 has annexed the OMR Application for the post of civil police, OMR Answer Sheet, PET result sheet, SP Finger Print and the Fax sent by DIG Recruitment which were at Ex.P4 to P6. On 25062009 14 C.C.No.16028/2012 accused No.1 appeared before him with anticipatory bail and he recorded his voluntary statement after complying the arrest formalities released him on bail. Thereafter he handed further investigation to PW3.
17. During the cross examination he stated that he know the procedure of appointing the post of police as well as PSI. For both these posts first there will be physical efficiency test and thereafter written test. He admitted the suggestion that there is a separate division in his department in order to conduct examination and for appointment. He also admits that ADGP is the head of the said division. He expressed his ignorance that from that division only the notification for appointment was issued and they are having responsibility to identify the examination center. He admits that the office of the Police Commissioner is not comes within the limits of Cubbon Park Police Station. He also admits that in the first information 15 C.C.No.16028/2012 statement and the annexed 6 documents does not disclose the fact that in which examination center the accused was appeared. He expressed his ignorance about making videography at the time of conducting examination for the post of Police Constable and PSI. Further he stated that after receiving the first information he has not met the finger print expert and not collected any evidence. He further expressed his ignorance that the the answer sheet and the documents pertains to the same were kept secret. He has not enquired 4 enclosures annexed to Ex.P1 were given by the Recruitment and Appointment Authority. He denied the suggestion that he has registered a false case on the basis of the documents given by the Administrator.
18. PW3 being the then PSI of Cubbon Park and further IO has deposed that on 16092009 he received the case file from PW2 and proceeded with the investigation. He stated that 16 C.C.No.16028/2012 accused No.2 after obtaining anticipatory bail came to the police station after following arrest formality his voluntary statement was recorded and also finger and palm impression were obtained and after that he was released on bail. He further stated that on 06022010 he obtained finger and palm impression of accused No.1 on 17052010 he has sent the finger print and palm impression of accused No.1 and 2 along with OMR Application, PET result sheet, along with his letter to finger print expert seeking the opinion. On 28022011 he received the report from finger print expert as per Ex.P7 so he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
19. During the cross examination he admitted that when he has received the file in annexure A there were 3 pages. But he has no idea that in the said pages it is mentioned that the thumb impression of five candidates unfit for comparison. He has saw the OMR Sheet in that it appears that one Hemalatha 17 C.C.No.16028/2012 was the invigilator. He also admitted that in the PET there were 5 different sports events for that different invigilators were there and they have mentioned about the clearance. To the suggestion that during PET exam the higher police officers were also present, he answered that they will only supervise the exam. He also come through the said exam and knows about the procedure of written and physical test. He admitted that at the examination spot only the candidate will came to know the result of PET. In Ex.P5 it appears that Additional Commissioner has announced the result but he does not know whether the said Commissioner was present there or not. All the five events were with regard to physical efficiency test.
20. He also admits that generally if a healthy young person appeared in the said event he will get sweat. He expressed his ignorance that in the palm if there is a sweat or oil substance the thumb impression will not appear properly. He has not 18 C.C.No.16028/2012 enquired about the officer who has conducted the PET. He also expressed his ignorance about any facility of washing the hands at the time of PET during taking of the thumb impression by the candidate. He also stated that by enquiring Hemalatha there is no process of identifying the accused has taken place. He also not enquired the five officers who has conducted the PET. He admitted that at the time of taking specimen finger impression, they were not taken in the presence of independent witnesses. He has not visited the spot of written examination. To the suggestion that he has not obtained the video footage taken at the time of examination, he stated that he has no information about the same. However, he has not written a letter to the chief of recruitment with regard to take information about the videography during examination.
21. He has not obtained the hall ticket of the accused issued during written examination for verification. He expressed his 19 C.C.No.16028/2012 ignorance about the digital equipment containing the thumb impression and other information of the candidates. He has also not wrote any letter to his higher officer in this regard. He denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the matter but only his subordinate officers prepared the charge sheet and he put his signature. He also denied the suggestion that though the accused No.1 and 2 have not committed any offences but since he received the letter from higher officer he has filed false charge sheet and was deposing falsely against the accused. The advocate for accused No.2 adopted the cross examination made by advocate for accused No.1.
22. This case has been registered only on the basis of mismatch of the thumb impression in the OMR answer sheet and the application form. On the basis of the report given by the expert of the finger prints this case has been filed against the accused No.1 and 2. It is very strange that the said finger 20 C.C.No.16028/2012 print expert has been cited as CW3 in the charge sheet but inspite of taking coercive steps the said expert who has given the report has been examined by the prosecution. So also the Police Superintendent who has preserved the finger impression of the candidates applied for the post of civil police has not been examined despite taking coercive steps. Therefore, the main witnesses in this case are the CW2 and 3, only on the basis of the report given by the finger print expert this case came to be lodged. It is very strange that the report of the finger print expert has been though exhibited but the expert has not been examined to prove that how he arrived his opinion in his report.
23. The PW1 who is the first informant has only states about lodging of first information statement and producing the annexures annexed to it as per the direction of his higher officer. During cross examination he categorically admitted that 21 C.C.No.16028/2012 in the annexure A of the report given by CW2 it is clearly mentioned that some of the candidates finger impression on the application, answer sheet and the sheets of PST and PET exams were not clear as such they are not fit for comparison. So also he clearly admitted that in the third page of the report it is clearly mentioned that the finger impression of 3 candidates were not clear as such they were not fit for comparison. Under such circumstances, the contention of the advocate for accused having force that there is every chance of mismatching of the finger impression due to sweat or oil substance in the hand.
24. In this case except the official witness no other independent witnesses were inquired during investigation and examined during trial in support of its case by the prosecution. There is also no mahazar at the time of taking specimen finger 22 C.C.No.16028/2012 impression of the accused No.1 and 2 which is lacuna during the investigation.
25. The contention of the advocate for the accused is that the entire examination process will be videographed by the authority and that will help to find out whether any cheating or impersonation made by the accused but that has not been produced by the prosecution. In the cross examination the PW1 admits that the whole process of examination has been videographed whereas the IO has expressed his ignorance about the videograph during the examination. Even the IO has not denied the suggestion about videography of the said examination but he only expressed his ignorance. This is major contradiction and also creates serious doubt in the case made out by the prosecution.
23 C.C.No.16028/2012
26. The IO has categorically stated that he has not secured the digital equipment containing the specimen thumb impression of all the candidates and their details in this case during the investigation. To this question also he shows his ignorance and even he has not wrote a letter to his higher officer about the digital equipment containing the specimen thumb impression of the candidates. He has also not enquired about the invigilators during the PST and PET examination which also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution.
27. The PW2 who has registered the case clearly admitted that the city Police Commissioner office and the Chief Officer for civil examination will not comes under the jurisdiction of Cubbon Park police station even then he has registered this case and proceeded his investigation and for this there was no acceptable answer given by the PW2 as well as PW1 who has lodged the first information.
24 C.C.No.16028/2012
28. In this case, only three witnesses were examined by the prosecution, one person who has lodged the first information as per the direction of the higher officer and the second witness who has registered the case and partly investigated and third witness who has further investigated and filed the charge sheet. Except these three witnesses no other witnesses were neither cited in the charge sheet nor examined by the prosecution.
29. Looking to the admission given by PW1 to 3 during the cross examination they were also not sure about what exactly the offence committed by the accused under which territorial jurisdiction the alleged offence has taken place. This shows that the IO who has registered the case has not properly investigated the matter and he has registered the case mechanically and without thorough enquiry or interrogation the case appears to be registered.
25 C.C.No.16028/2012
30. The case of the prosecution is appears to be doubtful because of non examination of independent witnesses and non conducting the mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses at the time of taking specimen thumb impression of the accused. Apart from that the non examination of the finger print expert who has given the report is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
31. Looking to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence except three witnesses no other independent, credible reliable witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. Under such circumstances, the contention of the advocate for accused is having weight that merely mismatch of the thumb impression will not be the basis for conviction of the accused unless there is no strong evidence of cheating and forgery proved by the prosecution. As per the admission of the witnesses there are some mismatch of finger impression of 26 C.C.No.16028/2012 certain other candidates in the report of expert. Therefore under such circumstances, without examining the finger print expert about his report it is very hard to believe the case of the prosecution. The available material on record are not sufficient to accept the case of the prosecution against the accused No.1 and 2. So, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused No.1 and 2. Hence, I answer the above points in the affirmative.
32. Point No.2: For the foregoing discussion and my findings to the above point, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.27 C.C.No.16028/2012
Her bail bond stands cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed and computerized by her, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 19th day of April 2022.) (Patil Veeranagouda S.) VIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : B.R.Galagali s/o Ramachandra PW2 : R.M.Ajay s/o Mohan Reddy PW3 : A.K.Girish s/o Kempegowda Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : First information statement
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P2 : First information report
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW2
Ex.P3 : OMR Application
Ex.P4 : OMR Answer Sheet
Ex.P5 : Physical fitness result details
28 C.C.No.16028/2012
Ex.P6 : Physical efficiency report
Ex.P7 : Report
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW3
Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M., BENGALURU 29 C.C.No.16028/2012 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER The accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC by acting under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled. However, in view of Section 437A of Cr.P.C the same shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bengaluru