Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Basappa Dhasbal vs Mallamma And Ors on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200068 OF 2022
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA DHASBAL
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAMMA W/O HANMAPPA DASABAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed TQ: LINGASUGUR
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 2. LINGANAGOUDA S/O HIREGOUDA PATIL
COURT OF AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: LINGASUGUR
3. SHIVUKUMAR
REVENUE INSPECTOR MUDGAL CIRCLE,
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: LINGAUSUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 378 (4) OF THE
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
LINGASUGUR IN C.C.NO.885/2010 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 420, 465, 167 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED
ACCORDING TO LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal is filed by the complainant/victim against the judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed in C.C.No.885/2010 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Lingasgur, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused i.e., respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 167 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case are that:
The respondent No.1 i.e., accused No.1 is the wife of complainant's elder brother. The complainant and his brother Hanumappa were partitioned joint family -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 properties about 40 years back. After the partition, complainant has purchased land bearing Sy.No.78/1, P1 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and Sy.No.81/1 P1 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas totally 4 acres situated at Kilarahatti village of Lingasugur Taluk, from one Padmavathi through registered sale deed dated 14.03.1973. Since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further case of the complainant that accused No.1 with the instigation of other accused prepared a false and fabricated affidavit of the complainant by affixing forged thumb impression of him and thereby submitted the said affidavit before the Revenue Officers i.e., accused No.4 and 5. On the strength of the said forged affidavit, accused Nos.4 and 5 mutated the name of accused No.1 in the ROR of the above stated land along with name of the appellant. Hence, the complainant/appellant has filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the aforementioned offences on 15.01.2009 and the learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offences, tried the case by framing -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 420, 465, 166 and 167 r/w 109 of IPC.
3. To prove the said charges before the learned Magistrate, the complainant examined in total 4 witnesses so also got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20.
4. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the complainant/victim.
5. I have heard Sri.Shivakumar Kalloor, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant so also Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused.
6. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence placed before him in a right perspective. Though the complainant has -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 categorically stated in his evidence about the forged act committed by the accused No.1 colluding with the other accused by forging the thumb impression of the complainant in an affidavit and thereby changing the mutation entries of the property which belongs to the complainant. Further, the learned Magistrate has also failed to appreciate the evidence deposed by PWs.3 and 4 and the documents placed by the complainant. According to the learned counsel the offences charged against the accused clearly attracts the provisions of Sections 167, 420, 463 of IPC. To buttress his arguments, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lingashetty Vs. State reported in 2002 ILR KAR 59 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Medichi Chemicals Vs. Biological Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1869.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused would submit that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffers from -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 any perversity or illegality since the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and also the documents placed before learned Magistrate. According to the learned counsel, at the outset, this appeal by the complainant/victim is not maintainable before this Court as per the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. He would also contend that even on merits also this appeal is liable to be dismissed since the complainant miserably failed to place any such documents or the evidence of experts to prove the alleged act of forgery by the accused. Further, the evidence of PW.2 discarded by the learned Magistrate since he did not turn up for cross-examination and PWs.3 and 4 were also totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, the only point that would arise for my consideration is:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022
(a) Whether the learned Magistrate is justified in acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, and 167 r/w 34 of IPC?
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties so also the documents placed before me.
10. On perusal of the evidence, PW.1 by reiterating the contents of his private complaint deposed in his evidence that the accused No.1 colluding with other accused forged the thumb impression and filed a forged affidavit before the accused Nos.4 and 5 who are the Revenue Officers to change the mutation entry in his name. However, the said private complaint is lodged after 3 years of alleged incident. The delay in lodging the said private complaint is explained by the complainant that he was unaware about the act committed by the accused. As a matter of fact, the documents placed by him and also in his cross-examination, he has admitted that before lodging the private complaint, he had already approached the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of mutation so also filed a civil case before the jurisdictional Court. In such circumstances, by suppressing the said aspect the private complaint has been filed after lapse of 3 years. Further, on perusal of the entire materials on record, the complainant failed to send the alleged forged affidavit and the thumb impression for the expert to testify the genuineness of the said document. In order to attract the provision under section 465 of IPC, the complainant has to prove the forgery by placing material evidence of experts or the documents to compare the forged signature/thumb impression with the admitted signature of him. There is no such evidence forthcoming in the case on hand.
11. Further the other witnesses PWs.3 and 4 were totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution, since he has failed to tender his cross-examination, the learned Magistrate has discarded his evidence. In such circumstance, except the evidence of PW.1/complainant, -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:758 CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022 no other believable or corroborative evidence is forthcoming on record. In such circumstance, I am of the view that the complainant has failed to make out any appropriate ground to interfere in the appeal. Moreover this being the appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments summarized the law in respect of the interference of appellate Court in an acquittal judgment that if the view taken by the trial Court is reasonable and possible, the appellate Court shall not interfere in the acquittal judgment. In that view of the matter, any interference in the impugned judgment does not call for. Hence, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: PS