Bangalore District Court
Herself Not Appeared Before The Court ... vs Are One And The Same Which Is A Very on 4 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 4th day of December 2019
Present: Sri.M.Mahesh Babu, B.A., LL.M.
VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO.18616/2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 18616/2013
2. The date of commission 13092013
of the offence
3. Name of the complainant State by Cubbonpark P.S.
4. Name of the accused Dasari Venkata Chaitanya
Kumar @ Venkata Chaitanya
Kumar Dasari s/o Chinna
Pullaiah Dasari, aged 23
years, r/at No.18/188,
Sanjeeva Kondaiah Street,
Proddatruru, YSR , Kadapa
Dist, Andhra Pradesh
5. The offence complained of U/s. 465, 471 and 420 of IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused and Pleaded not guilty
his examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.
accused is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 04122019
For the following:
2 C.C.18616/2013
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI of Cubbonpark P.S. against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.465, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:
On 13092013 with dishonest intention the accused has forged documents such as rent agreement and work experience certificate in order to obtain student VISA for the purpose of cheating and used the said documents as genuine and in order to get student VISA at Germany submitted forged documents to CW1's office i.e., Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany, Residency Road, Bengaluru and thereby cheated CW1's office and thereby committed the alleged offences.
3. Accused is on bail. Substance of accusation was read over to the accused for the offence punishable 3 C.C.18616/2013 U/sec. 465, 471 and 420 of IPC. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the allegation, prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 and P9. In the present case on hand, even after issuance of summons, warrant and proclamation to CW1, 2, 4 to 6 have not been secured as such their evidence came to be dropped as not secured. The accused has been questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard arguments from both the sides.
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13092013 with dishonest intention forged documents in order to obtain student VISA for the 4 C.C.18616/2013 purpose of cheating and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 465 of IPC?
2. On the above said date, time and place, you accused after forging the documents and used the said documents as genuine and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/sec.471 of IPC?
3. On the above said date, time and place, you accused in order to get student VIS at Germany submitted forged documents to CW1's office i.e., Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany, Residency Road, Bengaluru thereby cheated CW1's office and thereby you have committed the offence punishable U/secs.420 of IPC?
4. What order?
7. The answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the negative 5 C.C.18616/2013 Point No.2: In the negative Point No.3: In the negative Point No.4: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1 to 3: In order to avoid the repetition of facts point No.1 to 3 have taken together for common discussion. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the IO has cited as many as 7 witnesses among them the prosecution has able to secure and examined CW3 as PW1 and CW7. In the present case on hand, even after issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation to CW1, 2, 4 to 6 have not been secured, as such their evidence came to be dropped as not secured.
9. As stated supra, in the present case on hand, it is the specific case of the complainant that though the 6 C.C.18616/2013 accused was not residing in Bangalore and not working in the company of CW2, but still he has created the rent agreement and work experience certificate and produced the same in order to obtain the VISA at German Consulate Office. In this regard, the CW1 has suspected regarding the documents submitted by the accused, thereafter she has lodged a complaint to Cubbonpark Police as per Ex.P2.
10. As stated supra, in the present case on hand, the complainant herself not appeared before the court even after issuance of summons, warrants and proclamation, as such her evidence came to be dropped as not secured. Further, as per the version of complainant the CW2 who is the HR in Deputy General Manager of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd., has issued Ex.P8 stating that the accused has created the fake certificate and he has not worked in their company. It is paramount fact to note that Ex.P8 came to be 7 C.C.18616/2013 marked through PW2, but the PW2 is not the author of Ex.P8. In order to give proper explanation regarding the creation of alleged experience certificate the prosecution has failed to secure the presence of CW2.
11. Further, the prosecution has examined CW3 as PW1 who was alleged to be owner of the house to which the accused has created the fake rent agreement. This witness in his entire chief examination had not deposed anything against the accused herein. Though, he has stated that Ex.P1 has not been signed by him and the same has been created. But, during the course of cross examination, this witness has clearly admitted that:
"ನನನ ಸದರ ಸಸತನ ಮಲಲಕನನದನ ತತಲರಸಲನ
ನ ನಲಡಲಲ.
ತನಖಧಕರಗಳಗ ಯವದಲ ದಖಲತಗಳನನ
ನನನ ಬಡಗ ಪಡಯನತತದದ ಬಗಗ ಹಣ ಸನದಯ
ನ ನಲಡಲಲ. ನಪ 1 ದಖಲತಯನನ
ರಸಲತಯನನ ನ ಯರನ
ತಯರನ ಮಡದರ ಎನದನ ನನಗ ತಳದಲಲ ಎನದರ ಸರ.
ನಪ 1 ರಲರನವ ಸಸಹಯನನ ನ ಯರನ ನಕಲನ ಮಡದರ 8 C.C.18616/2013 ಎನದನ ನನಗ ತಳದಲಲ ಎನದರ ಸರ. ನನಗ ಕಬಬನಸ ಪಕರ ಪಲಲಲಸರನ ವಚರ ತಳಸದ ಮಲರಗ ಈ ವಚರ ತಳದನ ಬನತನ ಎನದರ ಸರ. ನನನ ಕಬಬನಸಪಕರ ಪಲಲಲಸರಗ ಈ ಪ ಪಕರಣಕಕ ಸನಬನಧಸದನತ ಯವದಲ ದಖಲತಯನನ ನ ನಲಡಲಲ."
12. On perusal of the above said admission it is paramount fact to note that this witness has not produced any single iota of document to show that he was the owner of the said building. Further, he has not produced any document to show that Nagarjuna i.e., CW4 has vacated the premises. Further, this witness has specifically admitted that he do not know who has created Ex.P1 i.e., rent agreement. Since, this witness does not know anything personally about the alleged incident and he does not know anything regarding the fact that who has created Ex.P1, as such his evidence is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused.
9 C.C.18616/2013
13. The prosecution has further examined CW7 as PW2 who is the IO in this case. This witness has deposed regarding the investigation part done by her and this witness has been subjected to cross examination and during the course of cross examination this witness has deposed as under:
"ನನನ ಪಯರದಯ ಕಡಯನದ ಆರತಲಪ
ಪಡದನಕತನಡದನತಹ ಸತ
ಸ ಡನಟಸ ವಲಸದ ಪ ಪತಯನನ
ನ
ಪಡದನಕತನಡಲಲ. ನನನ ಈ ಪ ಪಕರಣದ ದಖಲತಗಳನನ ನ ಪಯರದ ಕಡಯನದ ಪಡದನಕತನಡರನತತಲನನದನ ನ ಅಮನತನತ ಮಹಜರ ಕ ಕಮ ಹಲಳಲಗನವ ದಖಲತಗಳನನ ಜರನಗಸ ಪಡದನಕತನಡಲಲ."
14. This witness has specifically deposed that she has not conducted any mahazar at the time of collecting the documents from the complainant herein. Further, interestingly this witness has deposed as under:
"ಸದರ ಬಡಗ ಕರರಗತ ಹಗತ ಅನನಭವ ಪ ಪಮಣ ಪತ ಕದಲರನವ ಸಹಗಳನನ ನ ಆರತಲಪಯದಲ ಎನದನ 10 C.C.18616/2013 ತತಲರಸಲನ ನನನ ಬರವಣಗ ತಜಜರ ಅಭಪಪಸಯ ಪಡದನಕತನಡಲಲ."
15. On perusal of the above said admission made by this witness she has specifically admitted that she has not obtained the sample signature of the accused and she has not sent the same to FSL to get the opinion on the signatures found in Ex.P1 and the signature of accused are one and the same which is a very important part of the investigation. Unfortunately, the IO of this case has not taken any pain to collect the sample signatures of the accused and admitted signatures of the accused to compare the same with Ex.P1 i.e., alleged created rent agreement and other documents which is definitely fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, as stated supra, in the present case on hand, the prosecution has failed to secure the presence of panch witnesses in whose presence the 11 C.C.18616/2013 alleged mahazar has been conducted and the documents have been seized.
16. On perusal of the entire evidence available on record as stated supra, in the present case on hand, the complainant herself has not turned up before the court to give her evidence. Further, except the evidence of PW1 and 2 i.e., alleged owner of the house and IO no other independent witness have been examined by the prosecution that too PW1 who was alleged to be the owner of the house with respect to which the alleged rent agreement has been created as per Ex.P1 has clearly stated in his cross examination that he has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the said building.
17. Further as stated supra, PW1 has further clearly admitted that he do not know who has created Ex.P1 i.e., alleged rent agreement. In such event, any number 12 C.C.18616/2013 of evidence given by the PW1 is definitely noway helpful to the case of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, as discussed above, the PW2 who is the IO has also not produced any document to show that by producing the alleged forged documents the accused has obtained the student VISA, if at all the accused by producing the fake documents has obtained the student VISA. Under those circumstances, what prevented the IO to collect the said documents which is definitely fatal to the case of the prosecution. By considering the entire evidence available on record coupled with the documents, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point no.1 to 3 in the negative.
18. Point No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
13 C.C.18616/2013
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 465, 420 and 471 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and hid surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this 4 th day of December 2019.) (M. Mahesh Babu) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru. : Annexure :
1. List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 : Srinivasa PW2 : Sheela K.
2. List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P1 : Rent agreement Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Photocopy of rent agreement Ex.P3 : Complaint 14 C.C.18616/2013 Ex.P3(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P5 : Experience Certificate Ex.P6 : Rent Agreement Ex.P7 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW2 Ex.P8 : Letter Ex.P9 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P9(a) : Signature of PW2
3. List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL
4. List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:
NIL VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore. 15 C.C.18616/2013 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec. 465, 420 and 471 of IPC.
Bail bonds of accused and hid surety bond stands cancelled.
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.