Bangalore District Court
K.Ravindra vs ) R.Nagaraj on 1 June, 2021
0 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2021
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012
Crl.A.No.343/2012
Appellant : K.Ravindra, S/o.S.Kempaiah, Aged
about 56 years, R/at No.2128, 3rd
Main Road, 5th Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore.
(by Sri.MSC, Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondents : 1) R.Nagaraj, S/o. Late Ramakrish-
nappa, Aged about 47 years, R/at
No.41/1, Ist Cross, B.S.K. III Stage,
5th Block, Behind Kamkya Theatre,
Bangalore 560 085.
2) State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar police
station, Bangalore.
(D1: By Sri.MRN, Advocate
D2: By learned Public Prosecutor)
Crl.A.No.375/2012
Appellant : State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar police
station, Bangalore.
(by learned Public Prosecutor )
1 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012
-V/S-
Respondent : R.Nagaraj, S/o. Late Ramakrish-
nappa, Aged about 47 years, R/at
No.41/1, Ist Cross, B.S.K. III Stage,
5th Block, Behind Kamkya Theatre,
Bangalore 560 085.
(by Sri.MRN, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two appeal are filed challenging the same judgment passed by learned 3 rd ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.No.1982/2008 dated 7.3.2012. As such, both the appeal are clubbed together and common judgment is passed on both the appeals.
2. Appellant of Crl.Appeal No.375/12 was the Complainant before the trial court. Respondent of Crl.Appeal No.375/12 was the accused before the trial court.
3. Appellant of Crl.Appeal No.343/12 is the first informant of Cr.No.118/07 of R.R.Nagar police station. Respondent No.1 of this appeal was accused before the trial court and respondent No.2 was the Complainant before trial court.
2 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012
4. Appellant of appeal No.343/12 has filed the said appeal praying to set aside the judgment dated 7.3.2012 in C.C.No.1982/08 passed by trial court and praying to convict the accused of the said case.
5. Appellant of Appeal No.375/12 has also filed the said appeal praying to set aside the judgment of trial court and praying to convict the accused for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC. Rank of the parties to both the appeal will be herein after referred to with the same rank as assigned to them before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
6. Brief facts of the case before trial court which leads to file these appeals in brief are as follows:-
One K.Ravindra who is the appellant of appeal No.343/12 has given information to R.R.Nagar police station by stating that he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.287 measuring 9½ gunta of land of Halage- vaderahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and he has purchased the same from one Papaiah, S/o. Late Muniyappa @ Appaiah. It is also stated in the information that he has formed 6 sites in the said property and sold 3 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 three sites. When he intends to sell remaining three plots, he has lost the original Sale Deed executed by Papaiah. It is also stated in the information that one G.S.Jagadish, S/o. Late Giriyappa was filed case against him before Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk with respect to sites formed by him. Thereafter, on enquiry of documents before Sub-Registrar, Kengeri, he came to know that one R.Nagaraju, respondent No.1 of appeal No.343/12 has got created documents pertaining his property and created GPA by forging his signature and sold the remaining sites to one Kadaiah, S/o.Puttegowda. The informant has alleged that said Nagaraju has cheated him by forging his signature and creating GPA and other documents. Hence, the informant has prayed the Complainant police to take proper legal action against Nagaraju.
7. On the basis of said information, Complainant police have registered the criminal case against Nagaraj.R in crime No.118/07 of R.R.Nagar police station for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC. The said police after conducting the investigation in the said crime number have filed the charge sheet against said R.Nagaraju before 4 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 learned 3rd ACMM, Bangalore by alleging that he has committed the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC against the informant by creating GPA in his name by forging the signature of the informant by selling the property of informant to Kadaiah with the help of created documents.
8. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned trial judge took the cognizance for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC against the accused and registered criminal case in C.C.No.1982/08 and issued summons to the accused. In pursuance of summons, the accused has appeared before trial court, charge were framed by trial court against the accused and trial was also conducted for the alleged offences. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses before trial court as P.W.1 to P.W.8. Prosecution has produced 67 documents and got them marked Ex.P.1 to P.67. Accused has not adduced any defence evidence and he has submitted his written statement at the time of recording his statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., The learned trial judge after completion of the trial of the case has heard the arguments of both the side. The learned trial judge on 5 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced before it was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC vide judgment dated 7.3.2012. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the informant and the Complainant police have filed separate appeals before trial court.
9. Grounds of appeal in nutshell as urged in Appeal No.343/12 are as follows:
Trial court did not give much importance to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6. Trial court has given more importance to minor lacunas found in the prosecution case. The trial court has failed to see the corroborative evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6. P.W.1 has clearly stated about the sequence of events and he has also denied his alleged signatures found on Ex.P.3 to P.6. His version has been corroborated by evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P.47. The expert has clearly given the reason that the signatures found in Q1 to Q9 is not that of the informant. The trial court has failed to see that the opinion of expert was satisfactory and the opinion of expert was corroborated by oral evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 in his chief examination has not stated 6 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 anything about his acquaintance with P.W.1. He has not stated about the presence of P.W.1 at the time of preparing Ex.P.25. P.W.4 in his evidence has also clearly stated that C.W.1 was not present at the time of preparing Ex.P.25. The defence has not discredited the version of P.W.4 regarding why his evidence should not be believed. P.W.6 in his evidence has stated that "I am of the opinion that the person who has written the standard signatures marked as S1 to S12 and AW1 to AW6 has not writtened the disputed signatures marked as Q1 to Q9." The trial court is erred in discarding his evidence only on the ground that enlarged photographs are not produced even though P.W.6 in his cross-examination has stated that it is only one of the procedure and it is not the sole criteria. One R.Venkappaiah who had identified the signature of the executants on Ex.P.3, 4 and 25 and who had drafted Ex.P.5 and P.6 was not an advocate in the year 1995. This fact demonstrates that P.W.1 has not executed Ex.P.3 GPA. Even though there is no specific change regarding lost of document by the informant, the trial court had gone into another aspect that in the sites which were sold by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.36 to 38 7 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 are not that of Sy.No.287. Merely the fact that survey number is not reflected in Ex.P.36 to 38, the case of the informant will not take out for the reason that it is not the case of defence that two lands are different from each other. The trial court has not all considered the scope and ambit of Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act. When P.W.1 has clearly demonstrated that he had not executed Ex.P.3, it is the duty of accused u/s.106 of Evidence Act to lead evidence to prove the fact of execution of the GPA. The trial court had given lot of importance to the documents which are not produced. The trial court has wrongly assigned the reasons that the said documents have been withhold and thus an adverse inference was taken. On these among other grounds, the appellant has to set aside the impugned order of trial court and prays to convict the accused.
10. Grounds of appeal in brief as urged in Appeal No.375/12 are as follows:-
Eventhough there are sufficient cogent and clear evidence to prove the fact that accused has created G.P.A. and forged the signature of the informant on the said GPA and accused has sold the property belonging to the 8 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 informant to one Kadaiah on the basis of created documents, the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for the alleged offences without assigning proper reasons and without answering the fact whether the informant has executed GPA or not and witnessed the signature found on GPA is forged or not. The trial court has not considered the evidence of handwriting expert i.e. P.W.6. P.W.6 has clearly given his opinion that signature found on Ex.P.3 GPA is not that of the informant. The trial court erred in acquitting the accused by ignoring the evidence of expert. The trial court has also not considered the fact that one Venkappaiah was not an advocate at the time of preparation of Ex.P.3. Eventhough he was not enrolled as an advocate, he has got prepared GPA and put his signature on it. Even though the prosecution has proved the fact that the accused has created GPA and got it prepared by person who was not an advocate got his signature on GPA, the trial court has not considered the material evidence and documents adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The trial court has also not considered the fact that accused is stranger to the informant and as such, there is no chances of he executing 9 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 GPA in favour of a stranger. The trial court has also given unnecessary importance to the fact that the informant has not clearly mentioned in the complaint or in the paper publication about the exact date, month and year of letter of Ex.P.2 even though the allegation made against accused is only regarding forging of signature of informant on GPA and creating false GPA. Even the evidence of P.W.1 to 8 and Ex.P.1 to P.67 clearly proves the fact that the accused has forged the signature of informant on GPA with intention of cheating him and with the said intention, he has sold the property to P.W.2. The trial court erred in not considering the same and erred in acquitting the accused. On these among other grounds, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned order and prayed to convict the accused for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC.
11. After filing of both appeals, notice was issued to the respondents. After service of notice, the respondents have appeared before court through their counsel. Thereafter, trial court record was secured and the matter was posted for arguments.
10 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012
12. Heard the arguments of the Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of appellant of Crl.A.No.375/12 and respondent No.2 of Crl.A.No.343/12 and learned counsel for the appellant of Crl.A.No.343/12 and Learned counsel for respondent No.1 of both the appeal. The learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the appellants of Crl.A.No.343/12 have filed their written argument. The Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed memo with list of authorities. Perused the trial court record, grounds urged in appeal memorandum, written arguments, rulings relied upon by both parties and other materials on record.
13. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration:
Point No.(i) Whether the appellants prove that the trial court is erred in acquitting the accused of Cr.No.118/07 of R.R.Nagar police station (C.C.No.1982/08) for alleged offences?
Point No.(ii) Whether the criminal appeal bearing No.343/12 is deserved to be allowed?
Point No.(iii) Whether criminal appeal bearing No.375/12 is deserves to be allowed?
Point No.(iv) What order?11 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012
14. My answer to the aforesaid points are as follows:
(1) Point No.(i) .. In the Negative
(2) Point No.(ii) .. In the Negative
(3) Point No.(iii) .. In the Negative
(3) Point No.(iv) .. As per final order
for the following:
R EAS O N S
15. Point No.(i)_to (iv):- These three points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
16. Police Inspector, R.R.Nagar police station has filed charge sheet before the trial court by alleging that the accused with an intention of cheating the informant Raveendra has got created GPA dated 15.6.95 in his name by forging the signature of the informant with respect to the property belonging to the informant bearing Sy.No.287, measuring 9½ gunta of land of Halagevaderahalli village and sold the said property to C.W.4 - Kadaiah by showing some created documents of the said property which are standing in his name and got executed registered Sale Deed in the name of C.W.4 and thereby cheated the informant. 12 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012 The trial court took the cognizance for the offences punishable u/s.468 and 420 of IPC against the accused and framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid two offences. Trial was also conducted by the trial court against the accused on the aforesaid two charges.
17. Prosecution in order to prove the alleged charges against the accused has got examined eight witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8. Among them, P.W.1 is the informant/ victim, P.W.2 is the purchaser of the property from the accused, P.W.3 is the seizure mahazar witness, P.W.4 is the surveyor, P.W.6 is the handwriting expert, P.W.7 is the mahazar witness, P.W. 5 & 8 are the Investigating Officers. Prosecution has also produced 67 documents before the trial court and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to 67. Ex.C.1 to C.4 were marked on behalf of court. Ex.D.1 to D.5 were marked on behalf of defence side. Now let us examine the oral and documentary evidence produced before the trial and the impugned judgment of trial court in order to examine whether the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused for the alleged offences or not and whether the 13 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 reasons assigned by the trial court for acquitting the accused are proper or not.
18. P.W.1 in his examination in chief has deposed about he purchasing 6½ gunta of land and 3 gunta of land in Sy.No.287 of Halagevaderahalli village out of 4 acres 20 guntas of land from one Papaiah, S/o. Late Muniyappa @ Appaiah through registered Sale Deed dated 15.2.1995. Original Sale Deed dt.15.2.95 is produced at Ex.P.2. Ex.P.28 is the RTC of Sy.No.287 measuring 4 acres 20 gunta of land for the year 04-05 standing in the name of Papaiah. Ex.P.27 is the certified copy of the mutation effected in the name of P.W.1 on the basis of the Sale Deed. The accused has not disputed the fact that P.W.1 had purchased 9½ gunta of land in Survey No.287 from Papaiah. On the other hand, it is the defence of the accused that on 10.4.1995, P.W.1 had executed an Agreement of Sale in his name with respect to said property for consideration of Rs.65,000/-. On 15.6.1985, P.W.1 had executed General Power of Attorney, affidavit, acknowledgement for receipt of money and plaintiff company and also handed over the original Sale Deed 14 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Ex.P.2 to him. Accused in his written statement filed at the time of recording his statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has stated regarding the aforesaid facts.
19. But it is the allegation of the informant that the accused is stranger to him and he has not executed any Agreement of Sale, GPA, affidavits etc., to the accused with respect to his property in Sy.No.287 and the accused has got created those documents by forging his signature and he has also not delivered the original sale to the accused and it was lost and he also gave police complaint and paper publication about the missing of the Sale Deed. It is further allegation of the informant the accused with the help of created documents and GPA has sold his property to one Kadaiah on 28.12.2006 and also made Kadaiah to believe that he is the owner of Sy.No.287 to the extent of 9½ guntas. As such, the burden is upon the possession to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has forged the signature of informant and created GPA with intention of cheating the informant and prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused with the help of said created GPA and with the help of other created 15 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 documents has sold the property belonging to informant to one Kadaiah by representing that he is the owner of the property only with intention of cheating the informant.
20. U/s.468 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed forgery and he did so with an intention that the forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating. The term forgery is defined u/s.463 of IPC. The very basis of the offence of forgery is making of the false documents with the criminal intent to cause damage to any person. In order to sustain conviction u/s.468 of IPC, first it has to be proved that forgery was committed u/s.463 of IPC. According to P.W.1, the accused has forged General Power of Attorney dt.15.6.1995, affidavit dt.15.6.1995, Agreement of Sale dt.10.4.1995 and acknowledgement letter dt.15.6.1995. All these three documents were marked during the course of chief examination of P.W.1 as Ex.P.3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. Ex.P.3 to P.6 are the material documents which according to the prosecution are forged by the accused. P.W.1 in the examination-in-chief has deposed that he had not executed those documents and accused has forged his signature on those document. 16 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012 Prosecution in order to prove that accused has forged those four documents has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6. As it is stated earlier, P.W.1 is the victim/ informant and P.W.6 is the handwriting expert.
21. P.W.1 in his chief examination has deposed that R.R.Nagar police have obtained his eight signatures in 11 pages. Those documents are marked as Ex.P.7 to P.12. He has also deposed that his specimen handwriting was taken in Ex.P.13 to 18. P.W.6 is the Assistant Director of FSL. He in his chief examination has deposed that he had received the several documents from I.O. containing the admitted and disputed signature of P.W.1. He has further deposed that disputed signatures found on Ex.P.3 to P.6 were marked by him as Q1 to Q9. The specimen signature found on Ex.P.7 to 18 were marked by him as S-1 to S-12 and admitted signature of P.W.1 on 3 documents were marked by him as Ex.P.1 to 12. P.W.6 has further deposed in his chief examination that after scientific examination of S-1 to S-2 and Q-1 to Q-9 signature, he is of the opinion that the person who has written the standard signatures marked as S-1 to S-12 and AW1 to AW6 has not written disputed 17 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 signatures marked as Q-1 to Q-9. But he has stated that it is not been possible to fix the authorship of the disputed signatures marked as Q-1 to Q-9. The report submitted by P.W.6 was marked before trial court as Ex.P.47. Trial court has not accepted the report submitted by P.W.6. Whether the report of P.W.6 can be accepted or not and whether the trial court is erred in rejecting the report of P.W.6 or not will be discussed at later point of time. But from the evidence of P.W.6 and from the opinion expressed by him in his report, it is clear that signature found on Ex.P.3 to 6 are not that of P.W.1 and they are forged documents. But this fact itself is not sufficient to hold that accused has committed the alleged offences. It has to be established that the accused has forged those documents and he did so with intention of cheating P.W.1.
22. As such, there is necessary of looking into further chief examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his further chief examination has deposed that when he intends to sell remaining three plots formed by him in Sy.No.287, he found that the original Sale Deed of Sy.No.287 was missing. Thereafter, he has obtained its certified copy of the said Sale 18 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Deed. He has also deposed that he has received one notice from Tahsildar South, Bangalore with respect to RTC case filed by one G.N.Jagadish. Thereafter, he has verified the documents in Sub-Registrar office and found that the accused had sold his 9½ gunta of land to one Kadaiah with the help of forged GPA through Sale Deed dt.28.12.2006. Thereafter he has given complaint to Tahsildar, Asst. Commissioner of Bangalore to the effect that the accused should not sell his land by virtue of forged GPA and on 31.7.2007 he had given complaint to R.R.Nagar police station against accused. He has also deposed in his evidence that said police have shown in Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents during course of investigation and signatures found on the said documents are not his signatures and they are forged and accused had did the forgery in order to cheat him and to grab his property. He has deposed that police have obtained his specimen signature and hand writings in Ex.P.7 to P.18 documents. P.W.1 in his chief examination has also deposed that the accused is stranger to him and he had seen the accused for the first time only in the police station. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has 19 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 denied the suggestion put to him on behalf of the accused that he had executed GPA, affidavit, sale Agreement and amount consideration receipt and handed over the possession of property to accused as per the said documents.
23. Accused has not disputed the fact of selling the property bearing Survey No.287 measuring 9½ gunta of land to P.W.4 through the Sale Deed dt.28.12.2006. P.W.2 is the purchaser of the aforesaid property from the accused. P.W.2 has deposed about he giving Ex.P.25 Sale Deed to the police at the time of conducting Ex.P.45 mahazar. P.W.2 in his cross-examination by accused has stated that he and his son Nagesh together have entered into sale transaction with accused as per Ex.P.25 and they have verified the documents and purchased the land mentioned in Ex.P.25. P.W.3 is the son of P.W.2 and he is also mahazar witness to Ex.P.45 Mahazar. P.W.3 in his evidence has also stated that he gave Ex.P.25 Sale Deed to the police and they have purchased the property from accused through Ex.P.25 Sale Deed. He has also deposed in his chief examination that after obtaining Ex.P.25, the police have took his signature 20 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 to Ex.P.45. He has also stated in his chief examination that at the time of purchase of property he had enquired the accused about how he got the property. He has further deposed that he came to know that accused was acquired the property through GPA executed by P.W.1 and they have also verified the said GPA and identified the same during his evidence. P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that accused gave Ex.P.2 to 6 to them at the time of Sale Deed and they gave those documents to the police. It is to be noted herein that P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that he do not know about Raveendra, S/o.Kempaiah. On the other hand, P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that he know P.W.1 prior to the purchase of the property by them and C.W.1 was present at the time of survey and signed the survey sketch.
24. Thus from the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 it is clear that accused has sold the property bearing Survey No.287 measuring 9½ gunta of land to them by representing to them that he is the owner of said property on the basis of Ex.P.3 to 6 documents alleged to have been executed by P.W.1. It is also clear that Ex.P.3 to P.6 21 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 documents were in the possession of accused as on the date of execution of Ex.P.25 Sale Deed to P.W.2 and he has handed over those documents to P.W.2 at the time of execution of Sale Deed. P.W.8 the Investigating Officer in his chief examination has deposed that Ex.P.25 was produced by P.W.2 in the police station and he has seized them by conducting Ex.P.45 mahazar. P.W. 8 has also deposed in his chief examination has deposed that Ex.P.2 to 6 documents were produced by accused. The trial court in the impugned judgment at page No.32 has clearly held that the prosecution has proved the seizure of Ex.P.2 to 6 from the possession of accused by conducting mahazar as per Ex.P.50 and 51. The trial court has also held that prosecution has proved seizure of Ex.P.45 by conducting Ex.P.52 mahazar. Accused has not challenged the said findings. The accused in his written statement filed at the time of recording his statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., has explained how he has got Ex.P.2. He has stated that on 15.6.1995, P.W.1 has executed Ex.P.2 to 6 and on the same day he gave Ex.P.2 to him. He has also stated that on 10.4.1995, P.W.1 has executed an Agreement of Sale in his 22 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 favour with respect to Survey No.287 measuring 9½ gunta of land by receiving consideration amount of Rs.65,000/-.
25. I have perused Ex.P.3 to P.6. Ex.P.3 is the General Power of Attorney dated 15.6.1995 alleged to have been executed by P.W.1 in favour of accused. Ex.P.4 is the affidavit alleged to have been sworn by P.W.1 on 15.6.1995. Ex.P.5 is the Agreement of Sale dt.10.4.2005 alleged to have been executed by P.W.1 in favour of accused with respect to Survey No.287 measuring 9½ guntas of land. Ex.P.6 is the acknowledgement of consideration amount and possession confirmation letter dt.15.6.1995 alleged to have been executed by P.W.1 in favour of the accused. As observed by the learned trial judge stamp paper of Ex.P.3, 4 and 8 were purchased on 15.6.19956 and stamp paper of Ex.P.5 document was purchased on 10.4.1995 from one B.Chenna veera, 'A' class stamp vendor, Bangalore. Those stamp papers were purchased in the name of P.W.1. The learned trial judge in the judgment at page No.98 has observed that P.W.1 could have substantiated the said fact by examining the said stamp vendor. Since it is a criminal case, it is not duty of P.W.1 to examine stamp vendor. But it is the duty of 23 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Investigating Officer to investigate the fact whether those stamp papers were really purchased by P.W.1 or not and whether those were purchased by some other persons in the name of P.W.1. Since the alleged charge is of forgery of Ex.P.3 to 6 documents, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the stamp papers were not purchased by P.W.1 and to prove that accused had purchased those stamp papers for the purpose of creating false document in the name of P.W.1. But Investigating Officer has not made any efforts to examine the stamp vendor who has sold the stamp paper in order to clarify who has purchased those stamp papers and in whose name those stamp papers were purchased. He has also not collected the register maintained by stamp vendor regarding selling of stamp papers in order to examine whether signature of the P.W.1 is there or not or to examine who has signed the register at the time of purchase of stamp paper. Examination of stamp vendor is very much essential to know the procedure adopted by him at the time of selling of stamp papers. Statement of stamp vendor and documents or register maintained by him as on 15.6.1995 with respect 24 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 to sale of stamp paper will be the important piece of evidence to determine the fact of forgery. But Investigating Officer has not made any efforts to investigate regarding aforesaid facts. These lapse on the part of Investigating Officer in not collected aforesaid important information.
26. Further it is to be noted here that power of attorney was notarised before one R.Lalithamma, Advocate and Notary of Bangalore on 15.6.1995. The learned trial judge in the judgment at page 97 has observed that P.W.1 would have examined the said Notary. But it is not the duty of P.W.1 to examine the Notary. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate into the fact whether Ex.P.3 was really notarised before R.Lalithamma, Notary on 15.6.1995 and whether really P.W.1 has put his signature on Ex.P.1 before Notary and whether the notary has obtained the signature of the person who has executed the said document in the register maintained by her and whether entry of notarization of said document is made in the said register or not. The said notary would be the material witness to say about the real facts that actually occurred on 15.6.1995. His evidence would be very much 25 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 important to adjudicate whether Ex.P.3 was really executed by P.W.1 or not or whether it is forged. But Investigating Officer has not taken any pain to examine the said notary and to record his statement. Investigating Officer has also not collected the register from the notary of the period of execution of Ex.P.3. Investigating Officer has also not collected any other documents from notary which are maintained by him regarding the documents notarized by him.
27. The Investigating Officer has also not examined the witnesses whose signature found on Ex.P.3, P.5 and P.6. P.W.8 in his cross-examination has stated that since address of the witness is not mentioned in the documents, he has not enquired them. He has also stated in his cross- examination that the Complainant has not told the address of witnesses to Ex.P.3, 5 and 6 namely Shashi and Rajappa. He has not stated anything about other efforts made by him to trace out the whereabouts of the witnesses to said documents. What was the hurdle for the Investigating Officer to examine the said witnesses and to record their statements is not explained in the chief examination of 26 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Investigating Officer. Explanation given by Investigating Officer as stated above for non-examination of aforesaid witnesses is also not stated in his chief examination. It is the specific case of the Complainant that Ex.P.3 to P.6 are forged documents. Naturally the Complainant would state before IO that he do not know about them. IO would have enquired the accused about the details of witnesses to Ex.P.3, 5 and 6. Investigating Officer would have also examined the notary before whom Ex.P.3 was notarised about the witnesses. Further he would have examined the person who has identified the witnesses in Ex.P.3 and who has drafted Ex.P.5 and 6 regarding the details of the witnesses. The aforesaid two witnesses are also material witnesses to depose regarding whether those documents were really executed by P.W.1 or not and whether those death certificate are forged or not.
28. Further Investigating Officer has also not examined one R.Venkappaiah, Advocate who has identified the P.W.1 in Ex.P.3 and P.4 and who has drafted Ex.P.5 & 6. The Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the Appellant/informant have vehemently argued that said 27 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 R.Venkappaiah was not at all enrolled as an Advocate on 15.6.1995 and he was enrolled as an Advocate on 13.10.1995 under Roll No.KAR/2006/95 as per Ex.P.39 letter of Bar Counsel for India and this fact shows that Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents are created documents. Identity of R.Venkappaiah is not disputed by the informant. His signature on Ex.P.3 to P.6 are also not in much dispute. But the accused has disputed fact that he was not an Advocate at the time of preparation of those documents. Whether said Venkappaiah was an Advocate or not at the time of preparation of Ex.P.3 to 6 would not be of much importance to prove the fact of forgery of those documents by the deceased. Further, only from the fact that he was not an Advocate will not prove that the accused has forged Ex.P.2 to P.6. There is gap of nearly four month from the date of execution of Ex.P.3 to P.6 and enrollment of Venkappaiah as an Advocate. Putting the seal as an Advocate without enrolling as member in State Bar counsel will be the subject matter of enquiry by the concerned authority. In Ex.P.3 to P.6, signature of Venkappaiah is found. He has also drafted Ex.P.5 and P.6. As such, he would be the better person to 28 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 state who has given information to prepare Ex.P.5 and P.6. He would be the better person to state whether P.W.1 has really put his signature on Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents or not. If Investigating Officer would have enquired Venkappaiah and would have recorded his statement, true facts would have come out. Non-examination of Venkappaiah, Notary Lalithamma, attesting witnesses Rajappa and Shashi and stamp vendor Chennaveera and non-examination of registers maintained by Notary and stamp vendor and non- production of those registers would be several doubtful circumstances which goes in favour of the accused.
29. As it is stated earlier, the prosecution has mainly relied upon Ex.P.47 Questioned document examination certificate issued by FSL, Bangalore. P.W.6 is handwriting expert who has issued Ex.P.47 certificate. P.W.6 in his examination chief has stated that he has conducted the scientific examination of disputed signature found on Ex.P.3 to P.6 along with scientific signatures of P.W.1 obtained by Investigating Officer during investigation. The disputed signatures were marked as Q1 to Q9 by P.W.6. Specimen signatures were marked as S1 to S12. P.W.6 has 29 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 opined in his report that the person who has written the standard signatures marked as S1 to S12 has not written disputed signatures marked as Q1 to Q9. The learned trial judge has not accepted the report of P.W.6 on the ground that prosecution has not produced the photographs of the forged signature and the natural signatures and the prosecution has deprived the court from comparing the signature of P.W.1 with that of specimen signature of the accused appearing in Ex.P.59 to 64 u/s.73 of Evidence Act. The Learned Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the Complainant have vehemently argued that the trial court is erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.6 and submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Hence, it is argued that the prosecution has proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
30. Under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the opinion of handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence. But the said opinion is not a conclusive evidence . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Magan Binari vs. State of Punjab [(1977)SCC 210 = AIR 1997 SC 1091] has 30 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 held that "expert opinion must always be received with great caution .... it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost became a rule of Law."
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in recent decision of Padam Kumar vs. State of UP (Crl.Appeal No.87/20, arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6990/18, DD 14.1.2020) has discussed in detail about the weightage that can be given to expert evidence. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also discussed about the earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is referred above. In Padam Kumar's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that before acting upon the opinion of the handwriting expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence.
32. Thus as held in the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also in several other judgments, it is clear that evidence of expert is only a opinion evidence and it is not conclusive proof. Expert 31 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 opinion alone cannot be solely relied upon as substantive evidence to convict the accused. Expert evidence needs corroboration either direct or circumstantial evidence. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 and his report cannot be considered as substantial evidence to come to the conclusion that accused has forged Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents. Evidence of P.W.6 is also not from all doubts. He has not given any clear opinion that the questioned signatures found on disputed documents i.e. Ex.P.3 to P.6 are made by the accused. P.W.6 has stated in his chief examination and in his report that it is not possible to fix up the authorship of the disputed signatures marked as Q1 to Q9. Further, P.W.6 also not examined the admitted signature of accused and the signatures of accused obtained by Investigating Officer in Ex.P.59 and 54 documents and signature of accused marked by him as QD1 and QD2 and any other admitted signatures of accused only with disputed document to clarify the fact whether the questioned signatures are really forged signatures made by accused. In Ex.P.65 letter written by P.W.6 to Dy.S.P. as it is stated that there is any necessity of 32 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 finding the fabricator of fraudulent documents, then it is essential to examine the signature of accused and requested to issue instructions to Investigating Officer. But no such efforts is made by Investigating Officer. Since, report of P.W. 6 does not categorically stated that the forgery of Ex.P.3 to 6 documents are done by accused, I am of the view that sufficient corroboration to Ex.P.47 report is required to come to the conclusion that the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to 6 documents.
33. As it is rightly observed by the trial court, P.W.6 in his cross-examination has stated that it is one of the procedure to obtain the photograph of the forged signature and natural signature on the documents in order to ascertain as to whether they are forged or not. He has also admitted that enlarged photographs give the correct picture of the forged signatures and the natural signatures. He has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not made a reference with regard to photographs obtained in respect of forged and the natural signatures in his report. Even he has stated in the cross-examination that he has furnished the photographs of disputed and natural signatures to the 33 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Investigating Officer, the same is not produced by Investigating Officer along with charge sheet. Further, except the say of P.W.6, there are no materials to show that scientific examination of questioned documents was done with the help of ultra violet rays. P.W.6 in his cross- examination has stated that they examine the letters with respect to slants on the instrument monitor directly. He has admitted that he has not mentioned in his report that he has examined the letters with the instrument monitor directly. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned the degree of slant of letters in his report. He has also stated that he has not mentioned the number of the strokes identified through stereoscopic test and micro-scopic test. P.W.6 in his report has not mentioned about the details of scientific examination done by him. Except his report, there are no corresponding documents like enlarged photographs etc., to show how he has arrived to the conclusion mentioned in Ex.P.47.
34. Further Ex.P.3 to 6 are of the year 1995. Whereas signatures and handwritings of P.W.1 in Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.18 was obtained by Investigating Officer in the year 2007. 34 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012 Hence, there may be some variation in the signature and handwriting of P.W.1 during said 12 years of time. Investigating Officer has not collected any document of the year 1995 containing the signature of P.W.1 and he has sent the same to expert for comparison. Ex.P.2 is the admitted document of the year 16.2.1995 containing the admitted signature of P.W.1. Investigating Officer has also seized the said document from the possession of accused during the course of investigation. The said document was very much available with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. As such, he would have also sent Ex.P.2 to he handwriting expert to compare the admitted signature of P.W.1 found on Ex.P.3 to P.6. O.S.No. 5605/2007 was initially filed by the informant only against Kadaiah. The said suit was filed on 19.7.2007. Eventhough P.W.1 was were about alleged forgery of Ex.P.3 to 6 by accused, he has not included the accused as party in the said suit at the initial stage and he has also not sought any reliefs with respect to Ex.P.3 to 6 documents. Informant has lodged complaint against accused on 31.7.2007 only after filing of the suit before the trial court. Investigating Officer 35 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 has obtained the specimen signature and handwriting of the informant only after lodging of the complaint. As such, there is also possibility that the informant might have put his signature differently and he might have written in his handwritings in different manner than the normal way. As such, comparison of handwriting and signature of the informant of undisputed point of time is of the year 1995 with the disputed signature might have been done by Investigating Officer through the handwriting expert.
35. As discussed above and as observed by the learned trial judge, PW.6 has not followed some prescribed procedure before giving his opinion. There are no corresponding materials to show that he has followed such procedures. For the said reason and also for the discussion made in the earlier paragraph, the opinion evidence given by P.W.6 cannot be considered to come to the conclusion that Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents are forged by the accused. Further, there are no eye witnesses who have actually seen the accused committing the forgery of Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents. Ex.P.47 is not sufficient to prove the fact that accused has forged the said documents. Investigating 36 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 Officer has not examined any of the witnesses to Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents. Investigating Officer has also not examined the notary before whom Ex.P.3 and P.4 are notarised. He has also not examined the person who has prepared Ex.P.5 and P.6 and who has identified the signature of P.W.1 in Ex.P.3 and P.4. The informant has not mentioned the exact date in Ex.P.19 and P.20 on which he has lost the original sale deed in Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.19, the date of lodging the same to police is not mentioned. In Ex.P.20 affidavit, the date of swearing is not mentioned. There is no endorsement of police in Ex.P.19 about date of receipt of the same. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he gave Ex.P.2 to the purchasers at the time of executing three Sale Deeds. But Investigating Officer has not examined the purchasers and not recorded their statements to prove the fact that P.W.1 has shown original Sale Deed to them. A.S.I. of Vijayanagar police station was not examined by Investigating Officer to clarify the fact about lodging of Ex.P.19 missing complaint and Ex.P.20 affidavit before him on 5.3.2007. Missing of Ex.P.2 original is not relevant to adjudicate the fact whether the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to P.6. But according to 37 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 P.W.1, he came to know about forgery done by accused only after missing of Ex.P.2 and after receipt of notice from Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, regarding revenue proceedings and after making proper enquiry. Further, according to P.W.1, the delay in lodging the complaint is also on account of lack of knowledge about Ex.P.3 to P.6 till the said period. As such, missing of Ex.P.2 sale deed is also one of the circumstances to decide about credibility of evidence of P.W.1. Prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ex.P.2 was available with him till February 2007 and it was lost by him in the month of 2007 and accused has not got the same. No allegation is also made by P.W.1 in his complaint that with the help of Ex.P.2, the accused has cheated him. In the absence of any direct evidence who have seen the accused forging Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents, the prosecution has also failed to adduce any believable circumstantial evidence which erringly prove the fact that Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents are forged documents and accused had forged those documents with intention of cheating P.W.1. Prosecution has failed to adduce any sufficient direct 38 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the interested testimony of P.W.1 about allegation of forgery and cheating by accused. Further, the evidence of P.W.6 is also not corroborated by any other believable direct and circumstantial evidence. For the discussion made above in detail, I am of the opinion that the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution before trial court is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents with intention to cheat P.W.1 and with the help of those documents, he has cheated P.W.1 as alleged in the charge sheet and the complaint. For the reasons stated above, evidence of P.W.1, P.W. 6 and other oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution cannot be believed to come to the conclusion that the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to 5 with intention of cheating P.W.1.
36. The Learned counsel for the informant/ complainant and Learned Public Prosecutor has mainly relied upon the judgment passed by learned 30 th City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dated 24.1.2000 in O.S.No.5605/2007 in support of their argument that the 39 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 accused has committed the alleged offences of forgery and cheating on P.W.1. They have vehemently argued that in the aforesaid case, the City Civil Court has held that Ex.P.3 GPA is forged by the accused who is the defendant No.2 of the said suit and the Sale Deed executed by the accused in favour of Kadaiah on the basis of said Sale Deed is null and void and further held that P.W.1 is the absolute owner of the property mentioned in Ex.P.2 Sale Deed. It is also argued that the judgment in the said suit corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 6 and hence it is argued that the prosecution has proved the alleged charges against the accused. Certified copy of the judgment in the said case is produced by Learned Public Prosecutor along with the written arguments.
37. I have perused the judgment in O.S.No. 5605/2007. As it is rightly argued on behalf of Learned counsel for both the appellants, the said suit filed by the plaintiff/P.W.1 was decreed by holding that the plaintiff is the owner of property mentioned in Ex.P.2. It is also held in the said judgment that Ex.P.3 GPA is forged by the accused and the Sale Deed executed by accused to Kadaiah on the 40 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 basis of said GPA is null and void. Whether on the basis of said finding of the Civil Court, can this Court can come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the alleged charges against accused is the question that has to be decided now. It is to be noted herein that judgment in O.S.No.5605/2007 was pronounced on 24.1.2020. Whereas impugned judgment of acquittal was made on 7.3.2012. Judgment of O.S.No.5605/2007 was not there at the time of passing the impugned judgment. As such, trial court ought to have decided the case only on the available materials placed along with the charge sheet and available oral and documentary evidence. When the trial court has acquitted the accused by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of materials placed along with charge sheet, this appellate court cannot go beyond the said materials to come to contrary opinion. The appellate court had to pass judgment only on the basis of materials available in the trial court record. If the appellant want this appellate court to look into any additional evidence apart from those available in trial court record, it has to file necessary application u/s.391 of Cr.P.C., and sought to 41 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 adduce additional evidence. If the said application is allowed, then only the additional evidence can be looked into.
38. Burden of proof in criminal case and civil case is different. In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go to the accused. But in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of probability. Preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt are different standards, requiring different amount of proof. In O.S.No. 5605/2007, the accused was defendant No.2 and purchaser Kadaiah was defendant No.1. The accused has not chosen to lead any evidence in the said case. P.W.1 has led his evidence of P.W.1 and GPA holder of Kadaiah has adduced his evidence as D.W.1. Some of the documents produced before trial court are also produced in the said suit. In the said suit, the court has drawn adverse inference against defendant No.2 for not adduced any evidence. In the suit, court has held that defendants have failed to prove Ex.P.3 42 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 GPA and hence came to the conclusion that it is forged. It is not the duty of the criminal court to draw presumption u/s.85 of Indian Ev; Act regarding power of attorney. It is not the duty of the criminal court to adjudicate whether the GPA is in accordance with law or not and whether PA holder has acquired any valid title over the property through GPA or not. It is also not the duty of the criminal court to decide the rights of parties under Agreement of Sale. Criminal court cannot adjudicate the fact of title or ownership over the property or factum of possession over the property. Only on the ground that accused has sold the property through GPA or Agreement of Sale or Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents to Kadaiah, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the accused has forged those documents. Transfer can be made through invalid documents also. It is the duty of the Civil Court to decide whether valid title is passed through such invalid document to the purchaser or not. Standard of proof in civil case to adjudicate the aforesaid facts are different from standards adopted in criminal case. Hence, only on the ground that the civil court has held that GPA is forged and only on the ground that civil court has 43 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 held P.W.1 is the owner of property, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has forged Ex.P.2 to P.6. If at this stage, the judgment in O.S.No.5605/2007 is considered and if accused is convicted for alleged offences on the said judgment itself, the accused will be put to great prejudice and hardship. P.W.1 has got his remedy available to him under civil law with respect to his ownership right, possession etc., in the judgment passed in O.S.No. 5605/2007. The judgment in O.S.No.5605/2007 was passed on different sets of facts and circumstances and oral and documentary evidence produced before court and on the basis of different standard of proof. As such, at this appellate stage in appeal against acquittal, the same cannot be considered as sole base to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Upon appreciating the materials found in lower court record, it is already come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed alleged offences. Standard of proof in criminal case is different from that of civil case. As such, I am of the opinion that on the basis of 44 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 judgment in O.S.No.5605/2007, it cannot be come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to P.6 with intention of cheating P.W.1 and he has cheated P.W.1 with the help of those documents in the manner stated in the charge sheet.
39. The appellants have filed both these two appeals challenging the judgment of acquittal by the trial court. As such, the scope and power of appellate court u/s.378 of Cr.P.C., has to be understood. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka ((2007)4 SCC 415: 2007 SCW 1850) has held that "An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. It is further held that if two 45 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another decision relied upon by Learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported in 2013 Crl.L.J.2658 (Shivashankarappa and others vs. State of Karnataka) has held that "in an appeal against acquittal, the power to reappreciate evidence is not curtailed in any manner. Acquittal however not to be reversed unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances and not because different view is possible"
Similar principles as stated above are also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another decision relied upon by the Learned counsel for respondent No.1 reported in 2009 AIR SCW 222 (State of Goa vs. Pandurang Mohite).
41. Thus from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the power of the appellate to reverse the judgment of acquittal is only limited. Acquittal judgment cannot be set aside in appeal unless there are very strong 46 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 circumstances and substantial and compelling reasons. But as it is discussed above, I am of the view that there are no strong and compelling circumstances which show that accused is guilty of alleged offences. Further, no substantial and compelling reasons or grounds are shown by the appellants so as to reverse the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. It is also discussed that judgment passed in O.S.No.5605/2007 cannot be considered as ground to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Even if this court accept the arguments of Learned counsel for appellants and comes to another conclusion on the basis of material on record regarding commission of the alleged offences by the accused, then also this court cannot discuss the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court in view of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which are referred above. As such, I am of the view that various contentions taken by the Learned counsel for the appellants and the judgment relied upon by them are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused for the alleged offences. Apart from it, it is already discussed and held above that prosecution 47 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012 c/w. 375/2012 has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has forged Ex.P.3 to P.6 documents with intention to cheat P.W.1 and cheated P.W.1 with said documents. The reasons assigned by the trial court for acquitting the accused for alleged offences are proper. The trial court has properly and judiciously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record before coming to the conclusion to acquit the accused for alleged offences. Under these facts and circumstances and for the discussion made above and for the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the trial court is not erred in acquitting the accused for alleged offences. I am of the opinion that these are not strong and compelling circumstances and substantial grounds to reverse the trial of the trial court and to convict the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellants have failed to prove point No.1. As such, appeals filed by both the appellants are deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in Negative.
42. Point No.(iv):- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
48 Crl.A.Nos.343/2012
c/w. 375/2012 ORD ER Criminal Appeal bearing No.375/2012 filed by the prosecution and Criminal Appeal bearing No.343/2012 filed by the appellant K.Ravindra are hereby dismissed.
The impugned order passed by learned 3 rd ACMM, Bangalore, dated 7.3.2012 in C.C.No. 1982/2008 is hereby confirmed.
Send back the record of C.C.No.1982/2008 to the trial court along with copy of the judgment of this appeal.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of June, 2021).
(B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.