Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Vimalakka Ramappa Koli @ Talawar vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2023

                                                      -1-
                                                              CRL.RP No.100045/2015




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                             DHARWAD BENCH


                          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                                    BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI

                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100045 OF 2015
                      BETWEEN:

                      SMT.VIMALAKKA RAMAPPA KOLI @ TALAWAR
                      AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS
                      OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
                      R/O:JUNJARWAD, TAL: ATHANI
                      DIST: BELAGAVI
                                                                             ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN                THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION
KATTIMANI
                      NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
                      BENCH AT DHARWAD
KATTIMANI
                                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

                                                      ***

                              THIS    CRIMINAL   REVISION   PETITION   IS   FILED   UNDER
                      SECTION 397 (1) R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET
                      ASIDE     THE    IMPUGNED    JUDGMENT    OF   CONVICTION      DATED
                      21.01.2015 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED
                      BY THE VII-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, SITTING AT
                      CHIKODI, IN CRL. A.NO.2/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 196, 198
                              -2-
                                      CRL.RP No.100045/2015



& 420 OF IPC, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION AND
CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.


     THIS   CRIMINAL   REVISION    PETITION   COMING   ON   FOR
HEARING AND THE SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.06.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

Revision Petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikkodi, in Crl.A.No.2/2014 dated 21.01.2015 preferred this revision petition.

2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that accused filed false application with false information to Tahasildar, Athani, on 09.09.1992, stating that she belongs to Hindu Holer caste, even though she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste and obtained false caste certificate from Tahasildar -3- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 Athani vide No.MSC:SR:1440:92-93, dated 27.10.1992. On the basis of such false caste certificate, applied to the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation Limited, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') for loan to purchase the land under Land Owning Scheme of the Corporation. The Corporation on the basis of information furnished by accused granted loan of Rs.8,000/- and subsidy of Rs.8,460/- totally Rs.16,460/- to the accused on 23.06.1994 to purchase land bearing RS No.1081/2 of Kokatanur village. It is further alleged that accused has availed the said benefit of the Corporation on the basis of false caste certificate obtained from Tahasildar Athani, thereby cheated the Corporation. On these allegations made in the complaint, Investigating Officer after completing investigation filed the charge sheet.

4. In response to summons, accused has appeared through counsel. The Trial Court after being prima facie satisfied of the charge sheet material, framed charge against accused for the offences alleged against accused. -4- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 29 and the documents Exs.P.1 to P.51.

5. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. The Trial Court after appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against him.

6. The State challenged the said judgment of acquittal before First Appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record, reversed the findings of Trial Court and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 196, 198 and 420 of IPC and imposed sentence as per order of sentence. -5- CRL.RP No.100045/2015

7. Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the judgment of First Appellate Court preferred this revision petition contending that First Appellate Court only on the basis of assumption and presumption recorded the finding without there being any legal evidence on record. Out of the 29 witnesses of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4, 7 to 12, 16 to 19, 22 and 25 have completely turned hostile and PWs.15, 20 have partially supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence cannot be relied for any purpose. The prosecution has not examined CW.37 B.Shivashankar Reddy and CW.38, who conducted the investigation. PW.13 Shirastedar working in Tahasildar Office, Athani, admitted in his cross-examination that accused has not approached him at the time of applying for caste certificate. The evidence of PWs.14, 20, 26, 27 cannot be relied to prove any of the allegations made against the accused. The alleged original letter dated 22.08.1996 received from the President of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad on the basis of which CW.1 filed complaint has not even produced by the -6- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 prosecution and not examined the author of the said letter. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the First Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside judgment of First Appellate Court. Consequently, to acquit the accused by restoring judgment of Trial Court.

8. In response to notice, learned HCGP has appeared for the respondent.

9. Heard the arguments of both sides.

10. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it would go to show that on the strength of complaint filed by A.A.Choudhari, Inspector DCRE, Belgaum, Ex.P.26, case was registered in Athani Police Station Cr.No.210/2002 Ex.P.27. The President of Dr.Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad addressed letter to the Chief Minister Government of Karnataka dated 22.08.1996 stating that accused falsely obtained caste certificate and purchased two acres of land -7- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 in RS.No.1081/2 of Kokatanur village by cheating the Corporation. The said letter was forwarded on 30.09.1996 to the Corporation to look into the matter. Thereafter, ADGP, DCRE, Bengaluru, received the said letter and forwarded to DCRE, Belgaum. The said letter was forwarded to District Caste Verification Committee for enquiry. The Committee after enquiry passed order dated 29.10.2001 and invalidated the caste certificate. Thereafter, Superintendent of Police DCRE, Belgaum has directed complainant CW-1 to verify all records and to make local inspection then to take appropriate action against accused. On the basis of investigation it is alleged that accused filed application with false information to Tahasildar, Athani, dated 09.09.1992 stating that though she belongs to "Hindu Talawar" caste given information that she is "Hindu Holer" by caste and obtained false caste certificate vide No.MSC:SR:1440:92-93 dated 27.10.1992. On the basis of such false caste certificate applied to Corporation for loan to purchase the land under Land Owning Scheme. Thereafter, the Corporation has -8- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 granted loan of Rs.8,000/- and subsidy of Rs.8,460/- totally 16,460/- to the accused on 23.06.1994 to purchase land in RS.No.1081/2 of Kokatanur village. Accused has made the Corporation to believe the false caste certificate and to grant loan for purchase of the land under the Land Owning Scheme of the Corporation and thereby cheated the Corporation by producing false and fabricated document and obtained the benefit of Corporation for purchase of land under the Land Owning Scheme. The prosecution to prove the said allegations mainly relies on the oral evidence of PWs.4, 5, 6, 13 to 15, 24, 26 and 27, further seeks to rely on the documents Exs.P.6 to 9, 25 and 29 to 50.

11. Learned counsel for accused has argued that accused has not applied to purchase the land under the Scheme of Corporation as per the application Ex.P.7. The said application was filed by one Ramappa and he is not arrayed as accused in this case. Accused has not made any false declaration in obtaining caste certificate which was said to have been produced before the Corporation for -9- CRL.RP No.100045/2015 availing loan to purchase the land under the Land Owning Scheme. Complainant CW-1 A.A.Choudhari, who has filed complaint Ex.P.26, CW-37 B.Shivashankar Reddy and CW- 38 S.S.Patil Investigating Officers, further the author of the letter President Dr.Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad have not been examined. Out of the 29 witnesses examined by prosecution PWs.1 to 4, 7 to 12 and 16 to 19 are not supported the case of prosecution. It is only PWs.5, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 20 to 29 supported the case of prosecution out of them PWs.22 and 25 completely turned hostile and PWs.15 and 20 partly turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence relied by prosecution is totally insufficient to sustain any of the charges leveled against accused.

12. Per contra, learned HCGP argued that the first appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence on record and findings have been recorded with reasons based on documents which are not disputed by the accused. The order of Deputy Commissioner Ex.P.28 invalidating the caste certificate obtained by the accused

- 10 -

Ex.P.8 has never been challenged by the accused and the same has attained finality. On the basis of false caste certificate Ex.P.8 obtained by accused applied to the Corporation for grant of loan to purchase land under Land Owning Scheme. The Corporation on believing the caste certificate produced by accused sanctioned the loan under the Land Owning Scheme. Accused purchased the land and accordingly her name is recorded in the records of the property purchased under Land Owning Scheme of Corporation. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of Trial Court to convict the accused.

13. The prosecution relies on the application filed by accused Ex.P.7 to the Corporation. The said application was accompanied by the affidavit sworn by accused and on verifying the documents submitted by Village Accountant, the same was forwarded to Tahasildar, Athani, Ex.P.9. In pursuance of the same Tahasildar, Athani, has issued caste certificate Ex.P.8, wherein the accused described herself as Vimalakka W/o Ramappa

- 11 -

Kamble. The prosecution to substantiate said documents relies on the oral evidence of PWs.6, 13 and 15.

14. On the enquiry of the letter by President of Dr.Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad again the caste verification was done and on the basis of such enquiry Tahasildar, Athani issued caste certificate dated 26.05.2004 Ex.P.25. On the basis of report of Deputy Tahasildar Nada Kacheri, Telsang wherein it was found that Smt.Vimalakka W/o Ramappa Koli @ Kamble belongs to Talawar caste. In support of such contention reliance is placed on the report Ex.P.21 and the oral evidence of PWs.14, 15 and 26.

15. The above referred two set of circumstances would goes to show that at the first instance caste certificate was issued to accused Ex.P.8 Vimalakka W/o Ramappa Kamble and at the second instance caste certificate is issued as per Ex.P.25 stating Vimalakka W/o Ramappa Koli belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. These two caste certificates issued by Tahasildar Athani are admittedly based on the

- 12 -

spot enquiry report submitted by Village Accountant and Deputy Tahasildar. The first one Ex.P.8 is the caste certificate obtained by accused after declaring herself as Vimalakka W/o Ramappa Kamble and she belongs to Hindu Holer caste. The second caste certificate Ex.P.25 issued by Tahasildar Athani on the basis of report of Deputy Tahasildar wherein it was found that Vimalakka W/o Ramappa Koli belongs to Hindu Talawar Caste. The said fact was revealed during enquiry on the basis of letter addressed by president of Dr. Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad.

16. PW.3 is the younger brother and PW.4 is the elder brother of accused. The said fact has not been challenged by the defence. PW.5 is Teacher of Government Kannada Higher Primary School, Junjarwad, who has issued the Transfer Certificate of PW.2 wherein it is recorded that PW.2 belongs to Hindu Talawar Caste. The defence though has subjected PW.5 to the cross-examination, but has not denied PWs.2 and 3 being the brothers of accused. When it is not disputed by accused that PWs.2 and 3 are

- 13 -

the brothers, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.5 that PW.2 belongs to Hindu Talawar Caste and naturally the accused belongs to Hindu Talawar Caste.

17. The basis for issuing caste certificate Ex.P.8 to accused as Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble is the affidavit sworn by accused as Vimalakka w/o Rama Kamble Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 is the application. On the basis of the verification made by PW.6 FDA working in Tahasildar Office Athani with his signature Ex.P.9(a) and recommendation of Shirastedar PW.13, the Tahasildar of Athani issued the caste certificate Ex.P.8. The evidence of PWs.6, 13 and 15 so also documents as per Ex.P.6, P.8 and P.9 would go to show that accused by describing herself as Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble obtained caste certificate Ex.P.8 as she belongs to Hindu Holer Caste dated 27.10.1992.

18. Learned counsel for revision petitioner/accused argued that the application at Ex.P.7 is filed by Ramappa Chandrappa who is not arrayed as an accused and accused

- 14 -

has not filed any application for seeking benefit from the Corporation. On careful perusal of the application Ex.P.7, it would go to show that applicant Ramappa is ready to purchase the proposed land to be sold in the name of his wife. It is because of this reason only both husband and wife have put their LTM on the application Ex.P.7. Accused has not disputed the fact that she obtained Caste Certificate Ex.P.8 by describing herself as Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble and she belongs to Hindu Holer Caste. The evidence of PWs.6, 13 and 15 substantiate the fact that on the basis of local enquiry made by Village Accountant and the documents appended along with the application Ex.P.7, the Caste Certificate Ex.P.8 came to be issued by Tahasildar Office, Athani. This document Ex.P.8 Caste Certificate has been produced by accused before the Corporation for availing the benefit to purchase the land which was meant only to be allotted to SC/ST caste. Accused was very well aware that she does not belong to Hindu Holer Caste and her true name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar Caste,

- 15 -

which is not covered under the SC/ST Caste to avail the benefit from the Corporation. If at all accused was not signatory to the application at Ex.P.7 and not applied to the Corporation for allotment of land under the Land Owning Scheme, then she would not have sworn the affidavit Ex.P.9. Indisputably, the husband of accused Ramappa though signed on application Ex.P.7, but did not get any caste certificate for availing the loan from Corporation for purchasing the land. The learned counsel for accused contended that some third person acted behind accused who took undue advantage of accused being illiterate. In view of loan being granted to accused by Corporation for purchasing the land, the sale deed is executed in the name of accused, she was put in possession of the property purchased under the registered sale deed and accordingly her name is mutated in the records, therefore, the above referred both contentions cannot be legally sustained.

- 16 -

19. On receipt of the complaint of President Dr.Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal, Junjarwad enquiry was conducted and it was revealed that real name of accused is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. The evidence of PW.14 FDA working in Social Welfare Department would go to show that on receipt of caste certificate for verification he has visited to Junjarwad village and recorded the statement of PWs.16, 20, 21 and 25 and they have stated that the true name of accused Vimalakka Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. The evidence of PW.15 Deputy Tahasildar of Telsang revenue village would go to show that he has given report based on the report of Village Accountant on the basis of Exs.P.6, 7 and 9 and Tahasildar, Athani, issued caste certificate Ex.P.8. The spot enquiry report conducted by Taluka Social Welfare Officer, Athani Ex.P.21 containing the signature of witnesses Dharmanna, Gorakhnath, Lakkappa, Jainuddin, Appasaheb and Raosab have affirmed that true name of accused is Vimalakka Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste.

- 17 -

They have further stated that she does not belong to Hindu Holer caste and there are no any such person in the village belongs to Holer caste. PW.26 the then Tahasildar of Athani on the basis of said report given certificate of caste related accused Ex.P.25 stating that accused belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. It is thereafter the Caste Verification Committee under the chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum conducted enquiry and the caste verification committee passed the order dated 29.10.2001 and cancelled the caste certificate obtained by accused Ex.P.8 dated 27.10.1992. The said order has not been challenged by the accused and the same has attained finality. It is thereafter criminal proceedings took place on the complaint of A.A.Choudhari DCRE, Ex.P.26 dated 14.12.2002 and the case was registered in Athani Police Station Cr.No.210/2002 Ex.P.27. Therefore, on the basis of above said evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that accused being fully aware that her true name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste, by suppressing the said fact obtained false

- 18 -

caste certificate Ex.P.8 by giving incorrect information in the application at Ex.P.7 and also in the affidavit sworn by her Ex.P.6. The prosecution has further proved that enquiry was conducted for verification of caste certificate produced by accused before the Corporation. The Tahasildar, Athani on the basis of report of Deputy Tahasildar issued the certificate Ex.P.25. The above referred evidence would also demonstrate the fact that accused only with an intention to get benefit from the Corporation given incorrect particulars in the application Ex.P.7, sworn affidavit Ex.P.6 knowing full well that she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste which is not a Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe entitled for the benefit of Land Owning Scheme of the Government. Accused has produced the said documents before the Corporation and the Corporation believing on the particulars furnished by accused sanctioned the loan for purchase of the land. The sale deed was executed in the name of accused and the same was mortgaged as a security for the loan sanctioned by the Corporation and the name of accused is recorded in

- 19 -

the records of the property purchased under registered sale deed. The original documents are produced Exs.P.29 to 50.

20. The evidence of PW.27 District Manager of the Corporation speaks about receipt of application filed by accused with Exs.P.6 to P.9. On believing the said documents loan had been sanctioned by the Corporation for purchasing land exclusively meant for allotment to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. The name of accused came to be recorded in the records of property. The accused was put in possession of the property and documents at Exs.P.29 to 50 substantiate the said fact. There are absolutely no any valid reasons to disbelieve the above referred evidence and documents. The First Appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence on record and was justified in holding that though accused true name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. The accused has suppressed the said facts with her full knowledge with deliberate intention to get the property allotted from the

- 20 -

Corporation which was exclusively meant for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe and given incorrect particulars in the application Ex.P.7 and sworn false affidavit Ex.P.6. On the basis of such false declaration obtained caste certificate by describing herself as Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble Ex.P.8.

21. The contention for learned counsel for accused that the author of the letter dated 22.08.1996 address to Chief Minister has not been examined, further non examination of CW.1 A.A.Choudhari who filed a complaint and Investigating Officer CW.37 B.Shivashankar Reddy, CW.38 S.S.Patil is fatal to the case of prosecution and no conviction can be sustained against accused. The accused has not disputed that she has obtained caste certificate Ex.P.8 and availed the benefit of Corporation for purchasing the land exclusively meant for allotment to Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. The available material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough to hold that accused by suppressing her true name and caste made false

- 21 -

declaration and obtained the benefit from Corporation and the same is evident from the above referred evidence on record. Therefore, non examination of the above referred witnesses cannot be said as fatal to the case of prosecution.

22. Learned counsel for accused also contented that there is a long delay of ten years from the date of commission of offence on 27.10.1992 the date on which caste certificate Ex.P.8 was obtained and the complaint was filed on 14.12.2002. The fraud was not detected on 27.10.1992 when accused obtained caste certificate Ex.P.8. On the basis of letter President Dr.Ambedkar Yuvak Mandal Junjarwad dated 22.08.1996 addressed to Chief Minister complaining about obtaining false caste certificate by accused, the enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The above referred evidence on record would demonstrate that again spot enquiry was conducted and proceedings took place before the District Caste Verification Committee which passed order Ex.P.28. It is thereafter on nullifying

- 22 -

the caste certificate Ex.P.8 complaint was filed Ex.P.26 and the case was registered Ex.P.27. Accused has not denied the above referred proceedings initiated against her. Therefore, it cannot be contented by accused that there is delay in filing the complaint only with an intention to falsely involve the accused due to politics as claimed by her cannot be legally sustained.

23. Learned counsel for revision petitioner in support of his argument that Appellate Court was not justified to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court unless there is gross perversity in appreciation of evidence relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984 and another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Fredrick Cutinha vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2023 SC 2102. I have carefully gone through the principle enunciated in both these judgments and there cannot be any dispute with regard to proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Whether there is gross perversity in appreciation of evidence

- 23 -

depends upon facts and circumstances of each case followed with the evidence brought on record. The powers of the Appellate Court in terms of Section 386 of Cr.P.C. in deciding an appeal under Section 377 or 378 of Cr.P.C. are well defined. If the Appellate Court finds on re- appreciation of evidence on record that there is perversity in appreciation of evidence on record can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the present case, the accused though was aware that her true name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste has suppressed the said material fact and obtained false caste certificate Ex.P.8 by declaring herself that her name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble and she belong to Hindu Holer caste and sworn false affidavit Ex.P.6 and given incorrect particulars in the application Ex.P.7. On producing the said documents before the Corporation, got sanctioned the loan for purchasing the land under Land Owning Scheme and accordingly, the sale deed is executed in the name of accused. However, the Trial Court without properly appreciating the said evidence on

- 24 -

record has erroneously recorded finding in acquitting the accused.

24. The First Appellate Court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 196, 198 and 420 of IPC and imposed sentence accordingly. It is no doubt true that accused obtained false caste certificate on the basis of incorrect information furnished by her and produced the same before Corporation for availing the benefit under Land Owning Scheme. The offence punishable under Section 196 of IPC related to using evidence known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence. This proviso has to be read in terms of Section 192 of IPC where fabricating false evidence is defined which reads as follows.

"Section 192.Fabricating false evidence: -

Who ever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement intending that such

- 25 -

circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence,. May cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence".

This proviso makes it abundantly clear that false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceedings, secondly in a proceeding taken by law before public servant, or before an arbitrator, thirdly it must cause any person who in proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, and lastly, to entertain an erroneous opinion which has the effect of changing the result of such proceedings. It means that false document or statement must be produced in a judicial proceedings and such production tend to entertain any erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceedings. In terms of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of an offence falling in the category of Section 195 (1) (b) (i) for

- 26 -

the offence under Section 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court. In terms of Section 195 complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or some other Court to which Court is subordinate. In the present case the cast certificate obtained by accused Ex.P.8 was not produced before any judicial proceedings, the Court or any authorized officer has not filed any complaint. Therefore, the offence under Section 196 of IPC is not attracted and the sentence of imprisonment and fine ordered by the Trial Court cannot be legally sustained.

25. The legal requirement for the offence under Section 198 of IPC is that who ever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Similarly, the legal requirement for offence under Section 420 of IPC are (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement

- 27 -

of a person by deceiving him. (ii) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. (iii) the act of omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. In the present case accused has produced false caste certificate Ex.P.8 which she has obtained on giving incorrect particulars in the application at Ex.P.7 and the affidavit Ex.P.6 by describing herself as Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Kamble and she belongs to Hindu Holer caste, though her correct name is Vimalakka w/o Ramappa Koli and she belongs to Hindu Talawar caste. Accused has produced Ex.P.6 to P.9 before the corporation for availing benefit under Land Owning Scheme. The Corporation on believing Ex.P.6 to 8 as genuine documents has acted upon it and sanctioned the loan for purchasing the land. The sale deed was also executed in favor of accused and

- 28 -

accordingly her name is mutated in the records of the property. The above referred evidence on record meets the legal requirement for the offence under section 198 and 420 of IPC. The First Appellate Court has rightly re- appreciated the evidence on record in holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 198 and 420 of IPC.

26. Now coming to the question of imposition of sentence. The First Appellate Court has imposed sentence of 3 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 198 of IPC. Accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The First Appellate Court has not assigned any valid reasons for imposing maximum sentence for the offence under Section 198 of IPC. The imposition of sentence for the proved offences must be proportionate to the offences committed. Looking to the

- 29 -

facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of sentence of imprisonment is on higher side.

27. In the present case, indisputably accused is illiterate and having village background, further she has no any wordly knowledge and she has to depend upon others who knows reading and writing for filling the application Ex.P.7 and the sworn affidavit Ex.P.6 which were produced before the Tahasildar, Athani for obtaining the caste certificate Ex.P.8. The same were produced before Corporation for availing benefit under the Land Owning Scheme. Looking to the nature of evidence on record, the offences committed by accused and other attending circumstances are taken into consideration then in my opinion, if the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months each is ordered for the offence under Section 198 and 420 of IPC by maintaining the imposition of fine amount with default sentence as ordered by the Trial Court will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, to modify the imposition of sentence as ordered by the First Appellate

- 30 -

Court, interference of this court is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following :

ORDER The revision petition filed by the revision petitioner/accused is hereby partly allowed.

The judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, at Chikkodi in Crl.A.No.2/2014, dated 21.01.2015 is hereby ordered to be modified as under:-

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 198 of IPC.

Accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

- 31 -

imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

The sentence of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently.

Accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 196 of IPC.

The Registry is directed to send the records alongwith copy of the judgment to the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE GSR/mv