Karnataka High Court
Smt. Amramma @ Basamma W/O Pratap Gouda @ ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1227, 2020 (4) AKR 118
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3606/2012
Between:
Smt. Amramma @ Basamma
W/o Pratap Gouda @ Bassan Gouda
Age: 52 years, Occ: Household
R/o Kopparabedu Village, Tq.Alur
Dist. Karnool, A.P.
Now at Bellary District, Karnataka
... Appellant
(By Sri Ishwaraj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
(Through Shakti Nagar P.S.)
Represented by Addl. State
Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench
At Gulbarga
... Respondent
(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilakar, HCGP)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order of
conviction and fine imposed under Section 489-C of IPC
2
dated 06.07.2012 and acquit the appellant for the said
offence.
This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred calling in question the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 06.07.2012 passed in S.C.No.87/2009 by Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 09.12.2008 at about 12:45 p.m. PW.3/PSI were received credible information that a woman trying to circulate fake currency notes in front of Nandi Medical Stores near Sugureshwar Templeat Devasugur village and on that day there was jatra. Therefore, PW.3 along with other police officials and with woman police went to the spot and found that the accused was in the process of circulating fake currency notes and she was apprehended and found the accused was in possession 3 of Rs.3,860/- and out of them 19 currency notes were fake. Among them 4 notes of Rs.500/- denomination, 11 notes of Rs.100 denomination and 4 notes of Rs.50/-
denomination in all Rs.3,300/- were fake notes and remaining notes were genuine currency notes. Further it is complaint that the accused was questioned but did not give any account for possession of currency notes. Therefore, the same were received in presence of panchas as per Ex.P1/panchanama. Accordingly FIS was lodged before SHO and registered crime for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of IPC.
3. Based on the FIS, PW.8 had conducted investigation and upon finding the material that to send the accused/appellant for trial, therefore, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of IPC. Upon receipt of the charge sheet the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Then Sessions Court had taken up the case for trial. 4 The Sessions Court had framed the charge sheet under Section 489-B of IPC and upon asking the charge to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried and accordingly by recording plea of the accused, Sessions Court had started to proceed with trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined totally 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and got marked material objects as MOs.1 to 4. After completion of evidence of prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and put all incriminating evidence to the accused but she simply stated that she does not know to the questions put to her and thus, indirectly denied the case of the prosecution. During the course of examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused submitted written statement and she has stated that the accused is resident of Kopperchedu village in Alur taluk, Kurnool district, Andra Pradesh State and she is having husband and in her village there are two warring 5 groups and her husband is leader of one group and there is rival group to her husband in her native residence and the police at the behest of rival group implicated her into false case but in reality have not seized any currency notes from her possession and police have falsely implicated her in the above case by planting the currency notes in question. Therefore, it is her written statement to the effect above stated thereby pleading she is innocent of the offence committed.
4. The accused has not led any defence evidence except submitting written statement during the course of 313 Cr.P.C. examination. The Sessions Court after considering and analyzing the evidence on record and materials, the Sessions Court formed opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was trying to circulate currency notes and thus offence under Section 489-B is not proved but formed opinion that the accused was having possession of currency 6 notes and accordingly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed above stated, the appellant has preferred above appeal on the grounds stated below:
i) The prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of fake currency notes from the possession of the accused and in this regard the pancha witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, there is no proof of recovery of fake currency notes from the possession of the appellant/accused. The prosecution has failed to establish that the 7 appellant/accused was having possession of fake currency notes and the appellant did not have any reason to believe that the said notes were fake or currency or counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution has not proved 'mens rea' on the part of the appellant/accused for having possession.
ii) The appellant/accused is illiterate woman and she had no requisite knowledge that the things what she was having are counterfeit currency notes.
The police also found that 12 notes were genuine this circumstances indicates that the appellant is innocent.
iii) The prosecution has failed to examine expert witness who has given report regarding whether the notes found are genuine or fake currency notes. Therefore non-examination of expert opinion is in fatal to the prosecution case. There 8 were no independent witnesses to speak regarding to seizure of notes from the appellant/accused.
iv) The Sessions Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and just by assumption recorded conviction and sentenced the accused. Therefore, all these grounds canvassed in the course of argument which would be discussed later. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence by allowing the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under:
i) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellant/accused was having
conscious possession of counterfeit
currency notes or as a result to believe that she was having counterfeit 9 currency notes thus, accused committed offence punishable under Section 489-C of IPC?
ii) Whether the order on sentence
imposed by the Sessions Court
requires any interference by this
Court?
7. The arguments and submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP are placed on record and considered at appropriate place while making discussions upon giving reasons in order to avoid the repetition of the submissions.
8. It is necessary to have a cursory look on the prosecution witnesses and the roles played by them in the course of investigation. PW.1 is the police constable. He had stated that he had taken sealed cover stated to have been contained currency notes and taken to them note printing press Nasik upon his superior officials direction; PW.2 is the pancha witness 10 of mahazar as per Ex.P1 but he turned hostile; PW.3 is PSI who had conducted raid and apprehended accused and seized alleged currency notes and conducted panchanama as per Ex.P1; PWs.4 and 5 who are pancha witness regarding apprehending of accused but turned hostile; PW.6 is the pancha witness to Ex.P1 but turned hostile; PW.7 is the police constable had accompany raid along with PW.3; PW.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police who had conducted investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet; PW.9 is who handed over FIS and FIR to the superior officials and to the Court.
9. In the present case all pancha witnesses who are stated to be independent witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, regarding conducting raid, apprehending accused, seizure of currency notes from her and prepared panchanama in this regard for all 11 these facts to be established the available witnesses are only the police official witnesses.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that to attract Section 489-C of IPC the prosecution has to establish 'mens rea' in the present case. In other words prosecution has to establish the conscious possession of currency notes on the part of appellant/accused to possess the currency notes or to establish the reason to believe that the appellant/accused was having fake currency notes in her but the prosecution has not at all produced any evidences in the present case to prove that the appellant was having currency notes in her possession. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove element of 'mens rea' on part of the accused. Therefore, argued in this circumstance, the offence under Section 489-C is not proved. Further submitted that innocent possession of fake currency 12 notes does not attract the offence under Section 489-C of IPC. Therefore, in the present case the accused is illiterate lady as it is admitted by PW.8/Investigating Officer himself. Therefore, the appellant/accused being illiterate lady did not know the currency notes or counterfeit currency notes. There is no element of mens rea proof that the accused was intending to circulate by having possession of currency notes. Therefore, argued that in this circumstance in the absence of materials it cannot be held that the appellant/accused has committed offence under Section 489-C of IPC.
11. Before adverting to the appreciation of the evidence on record whether the prosecution proved 'mens rea' on part of the appellant/accused, let me state the settled legal position regarding appreciation of evidence of the official witnesses because in the present case the available witnesses are only official witnesses and after considering official witnesses evidences are to 13 be considered or not or whether their evidence can be rejected in toto and mechanically just because they are official witnesses. I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab [(2020) 2 SCC 563], wherein it is held that -
"14. Further, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that no independent witness was examined, despite the fact they were available. In this regard, it is to be noticed from the depositions of Devi Lal, Head Constable (PW-1), during the course of cross- examination, has stated that efforts were made to join independent witnesses, but none were available. The mere fact that the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of official witnesses, does not mean that same should not be believed.
15. The judgment in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521), relied on by the counsel for the respondent-State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status.
16. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil ((2001) 1 SCC 652, it was held as under (SCC p.655):14
'It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer, should be approached with initial distrust. It is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. The official acts of the Police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognized even by the Legislature'. "
12. Therefore, from the above stated legal position it is clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that just because official witnesses much less police witnesses their evidence cannot be rejected. The evidence of official witnesses can be sifted and weighed as all other witnesses with reference to the cross- examination and if their evidence are found to be believable thus their evidence cannot be rejected mechanically.
13. PW.3/PSI had stated that he had received information that one woman was circulating counterfeit currency notes and accordingly conducted raid by 15 securing panchas and other police officials and apprehended accused and upon making enquiry the accused had stated the currency notes were given by her husband for circulation purpose. It is not disputed fact that on the day of incident on 09.12.2008 there was jatra in Sugureshwar temple. PW.3 had stated that among 31 notes 19 notes were found as counterfeit currency notes 12 notes were genuine notes and accordingly packed in a separate covers and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P1.
14. PW.7 is the police constable who had accompanied raid along with PW.3 and stated that the accused was there and upon apprehending her recovered currency notes as stated by PW.3. Regarding apprehending the accused and seized currency notes and drawn panchanama as per Ex.P1 the evidence of PW.7 is in line to the evidence of PW.3. Therefore, PWs.3 and 7 are prime witnesses in the present case. Both 16 these witnesses have stated that upon enquiring the accused had stated that her native place is Kopperchedu village in Alur taluk, Kurnool district, Andra Pradesh State. Her husband has given the currency notes for circulating the same. The evidence of PWs.3 and 7 are tested and analyzed with reference to the cross-examination but nothing is elicited that PWs.3 and 7 have given false evidence and the accused is falsely implicated into the case. It is cross examined to the effect that on the day of incident there was jatra in Sugureshwar temple and in temple area there are large number of people were gathered in the jatra. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.3 and 7 found to be believable upon analyzing their evidence.
15. PW.8 is the CPI who had conducted investigation. After registration of FIR and during the course of investigation they recorded statement of witnesses and then filed a charge sheet. It is cross 17 examined to the effect that he was narrated sequence of events of investigation regarding sending currency notes to printing press Nasik and received report and prepared spot sketch on the place of incident and after collecting all evidences against accused filed charge sheet. PW.8 has narrated sequence of events during the course of investigation. Therefore, upon weighing and sifting the evidence of these police witnesses i.e. PWs.3, 7 and 8 their evidences are trustworthy and believable that they went and conducted raid and apprehended accused and currency notes seized from the accused.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the prosecution has not placed any evidence to show that the accused was having 'mens rea' or the accused had a reason to believe that she was in possession of counterfeit notes. Therefore, in absence of these evidence regarding mens rea accused cannot be apprehended for the offence under Section 18 489-C of IPC because unless the prosecution proves 'mens rea' guilty cannot be recorded and in this regard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umashanker vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001 (4) Crimes 83 (SC)]; this judgment is also discussed by Sessions Court in its judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused taking this Court to the observations made in para-15 of the judgment and argued that unless mens rea is proved conviction cannot be made under Section 489-C of IPC. In the above cited case fact is that the accused was having fake currency notes of Rs.100/- and had not placed materials to prove mens rea on the part of accused. Therefore, for want of proof of mens rea and the accused was acquitted in the above cited case.
17. But in the above discussion in the instant case having found that their evidence are found to be 19 believable and trustworthy and upon enquiry the accused had stated that her husband has given the currency notes for circulating in jatra. It is not disputed fact that on the day of incident there was jatra in Sugureshwar temple. It is not disputed that when the accused apprehended she was found having 31 currency notes among that notes 19 notes were counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, the source of supply of currency notes i.e. what is stated by these police witnesses is that the accused have received said currency notes from her husband. Therefore, considering this large number of 19 counterfeit currency notes itself proves the fact that the accused was having knowledge of having counterfeit currency notes and she was present in jatra for circulating the same. Even though the prosecution has not proved that accused had circulated some of the currency notes but accused found during attempt of circulating the currency notes which amounts inchoate offence which 20 is preparedness and attempt of circulating fake currency notes is amounting to incriminating circumstances against the accused. The fact itself that the accused is having 19 fake currency notes of various denominations itself is the fact proved the accused was having mens rea for circulating the said currency notes. Therefore, in this regard the prosecution has proved the necessary 'mens rea' on the part of the accused for having possession of currency notes. In this regard the Court is not able to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution has not proved mens rea on the part of the accused/appellant.
18. Let me consider here in the present case what are the 'facts' and 'facts in issue' is involved, as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applying the interpretation clause on the case on hand. Here it is relevant to extract, 'fact', 'facts in issue', 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved'.
21
"Fact" - "Fact" means and includes -
(1) anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses' (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
"Facts in issue" - The expression "facts in issue" means and includes -
any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non- existence, nature or extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. Explanation. - Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, any Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.
"Proved" - A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
"Disproved" - A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non- existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. "Not proved" - A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.22
19. The elements of 'mens rea' is a mandatory status. It is within the knowledge of the person like in the present case within the knowledge of the accused/appellant. The element of 'mens rea' cannot be proved by producing direct evidence. The element of 'mens rea' can be inferred from the circumstances. The fact in the present case is whether the accused was having knowledge of having possession of counterfeit currency notes. As defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the "Fact" is also "any mental condition of which any person is conscious". It is not disputed fact that the accused was having found 19 counterfeit notes. The only disputed fact as contended by the accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove the element of 'mens rea'. In other words, proof required is that the accused is having conscious possession of fake currency notes and accused was also found 12 other genuine notes along with other notes. Therefore, it is within the 23 knowledge of the accused/appellant how the said alleged counterfeit currency notes were with her. Therefore, when this is within the knowledge of the accused/appellant regarding innocent possession of fake currency notes she has to give explanation and omissions to give such explanation the court may presume existence of certain facts as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
20. As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, -
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely tohave happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case."
"Illustration (g) - That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if 24 produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;"
21. Considering the factual aspects which are occurred in common course of natural events or considering the human conduct or considering the public and private business, then a person is having knowledge within his mind he can explain the circumstances otherwise adverse inference can be drawn against that person. The illustration (g) in Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly establishes the fact in the present case. Therefore, an adverse inference can also be drawn as against the accused for failing to explain herself regarding under what circumstances she was in possession of those currency notes. Therefore, upon analyzing the material evidence on record as discussed above, the prosecution is able to prove the element of 'mens rea' on the part of the appellant/accused regarding possession of 25 counterfeit notes which is proved to be the accused having in possession of the same in attempting to circulate the same. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is not applicable to the present case on hand since the facts and circumstances in the above said case and the facts and circumstances of the present case are different.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused further argued that PW.8/Investigating Officer had not conducted investigation regarding the source from which fake currency notes were collected is fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State by Lashkar Police, Mysore vs. M.V.Srinivasa [2004 (2) Kar.L.J.19 (DB)]. learned counsel has drawn attention at para-7 of the above stated judgment and it is reproduced as below:
26
"7. The second aspect of the fault on the part of the investigating authorities emerges from the fact that while ascertaining the source of the fake currency if it was found that some other person was producing the currency or circulating it and that the accused was only an agent, that would have still established the guilty knowledge. The last aspect of the matter is that if for any reason the investigation revealed that the accused himself was the author of the fake currency then, on the basis of that evidence it would have been impossible for the accused to contend that the possession and user were both innocent. The fact that the police have not persisted with the investigation and not gone to the source of the currency is absolutely fatal to the prosecution and as incorporated by us earlier, this is a gaping void in the prosecution case which is totally destructive."
23. Even in the present case PW.8 had not ascertained the source of fake notes it cannot always be 27 fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case even though the charge under Section 489-B is framed but convicted under 489-C of IPC. In the above cited para it is observed by this Court that when ascertaining the source of currency notes if it was found that some of them are producing and circulating it and that the accused was only an agent would have still established the guilt knowledge. This observation helps the prosecution case. Here in the present case accused has not manufactured the currency notes but was attempting to circulate it and it is found that the accused is only person being an agent attempted to circulate the currency notes then it establishes the guilt as per observation made in this para. The acquittal of the accused in the above stated case for want of legal evidences and for want of giving evidence of expert witness who had given report but the observations made at para-7 fortifies the present case on legal aspect. 28
24. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that even though PWs.3 and 7 have stated that from the purse of the accused fake currency notes were seized and the purse is not produced before the court and not got marked as material object is another circumstance creates doubt. Considering this aspect because purse is not seized and produced before the Court cannot be said that it is fatal to the prosecution case. Non-production of purse in the present case as contended by the counsel for the appellant at the most can be said irregularity in procedure in recovering seizure articles and this can be categorized as minor discrepancy without affecting the prosecution case but on other aspects by placing other evidences prosecution has established the guilt of the accused.
25. Learned counsel further argued that the charge framed is under Section 489-B of IPC but not under Section 489-C of IPC but the Sessions Court has 29 convicted the accused under Section 489-C of IPC. Therefore, it is contended that without framing charge under Section 489-C of IPC but still convicted accused under Section 489-C of IPC is amounting causing deprivation to accused in knowing ingredients stated in Section 489-C of IPC before facing of trial. Therefore, conviction under Section 489-C of IPC is not correct without framing charge on it.
26. Considering this aspect canvassed by the counsel for the appellant let me consider the ingredients enumerated in 489-B and 489-C of IPC.
489-B 489-C
1) The notes in question 1) The notes in question
are either currency-note or are either currency-notes
bank-notes; or bank-notes;
2) Such bank-notes or 2) Such notes were forged
currency-notes were forged or counterfeit;
or counter-feited;
3) Accused had 3) Accused was in
transactions or otherwise possession of such notes;
trafficked in or used as
genuine any forged or
counterfeited currency-
notes or bank-notes;
30
4) Accused had knowledge 4) Accused knew or had
or reason to believe that reason to believe that such
those notes were forged or notes were forged or
counterfeited. counterfeit;
5) He intended to use the
same as genuine.
27. Considering the ingredients of both
substantive offences the ingredients are more or less similar to each other except difference that in 489-B there is element of trafficking, circulation, etc., but in 489-C which is only having possession.
28. Under these circumstances, even if charge is framed under Section 489-B and not in 489-C by the Sessions Court but by taking aid of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. even if charge is framed for one substantive offence and not framed for other offence still for the offence not framed charge the conviction can be made on the ground that whenever ingredients of offences almost similar but with minor difference is ingredients without affecting the core of the offence alleged and 31 thus in the present case the conviction under Section 489-C of IPC is proper. The difference between ingredients stated in Section 489-B and in Section 489- C that in 489-B there should be circulation, trafficking etc., in similar nature but in Section 489-C it is only having possession but before making circulation or trafficking it is condition precedent that having possession of the contraband articles, before trafficking, circulation. Therefore contraband articles found in the present case. Therefore, even though charge under Section 489-C is not framed but 489-B is framed but conviction made by the Sessions Court under Section 489-C is found to be just and proper.
29. Under this exigencies what is canvassed by the counsel for the appellant and where it is doubtful what is the offence has been committed as in the present case whether offence under Section 489-B or under Section 489-C is committed then Section 221 of 32 Cr.P.C. is applicable. Here in the present case the doubtfulness expressed is whether accused had trafficked or circulated counterfeit currency notes or simply having conscious possession of the counterfeit currency notes. As the ingredients in these two substantive offences are having similarity described as above stated the offence under Section 489-B is on higher degree compared to the offence stated under Section 489-C. Therefore, the core of the offence is similar in both offences under Section 489-B and 489- C. Under these circumstances sub-section 2 of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. can be taken in aid under these facts and circumstances. Even though in the present case the Sessions Court has not framed charge under Section 489-C but after considering evidences found that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 489-C Even though the Sessions Court had not assigned any reasons for converting this and conviction is recorded under Section 489-C but simply because the reasons 33 are not assigned conviction under Section 489-C cannot be said improper. Section 221 of Cr.P.C. is applicable to cases where the facts are not doubtful but application of law to the facts is doubtful. Section 221 is an exception to Section 218 of Cr.P.C. A man may be convicted of an offence, although there has been no charge in respect of it, if the evidence is such as to establish a charge that might have been made. In a case falling under sub- section 1 and 2 of Section 221 of Cr.P.C. it is permissible for a criminal court to alter the conviction from an offence which is of greater gravity to an offence of lesser gravity, provided that prejudice is not caused to the accused. On this principle of law I place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bishwanath Jha vs. State of Bihar [2002(2) Crimes 163 (SC)].
30. Therefore, upon considering and analyzing the entire evidence on record as discussed above the 34 trial court after considering the case has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and this court does not find any perversity in approaching the manner in which the evidence is appreciated by the trial court.
31. Therefore, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court convicting the accused under Section 489-C of IPC is just and proper as it is as per law. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative. POINT NO.2:
32. Regarding sentence in the present case the Sessions Court had convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-C and ordered sentence directing the appellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and shall pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-.
33. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accused/appellant is illiterate lady and without 35 knowing much consequences regarding possession of counterfeit currency notes that is what is given by some other person had possession of such currency notes and considering the factors that the accused/appellant is illiterate lady and having minor children requested to show leniency in the sentence.
34. Learned HCGP opposed for making alter in the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court.
35. In the present case the fact is not disputed by the prosecution as it is depicted by the evidence of PW.8 that the appellant/accused is woman and she is illiterate lady and resident of village and the appellant hales from Andhra Pradesh State. The offence is proved in the present case under Section 489-C i.e. having possession of counterfeit currency notes. Possession of fake currency notes by the appellant/accused cannot be said to be having huge running hundred or thousands together but number of currency notes found are 19 36 counterfeit currency notes as per prosecution case. Therefore, considering all these mitigating factors this court is of the opinion to reduce the sentence imposed from rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and thus if the appellant/accused is made to suffer 3 years simple imprisonment which would suffice for the accused to serve the sentence as punishment and in that regard by making reducing sentence the state would also not get any prejudice. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court is hereby reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years. Other part of sentence is ordered to keep intact. Hence, point No.2 is answered in affirmative.
36. Under these circumstances, only on the ground that reducing sentence this appeal is partly succeeded and thus appeal is partly allowed. 37
37. The judgment of conviction dated 6.07.2012 passed in SC No.87/2009 by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Raichur, convicting the accused under Section 489-C is hereby confirmed.
So far as sentence is concerned, it is ordered the appellant/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years instead of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years what awarded by the Sessions court. Accordingly, sentence is reduced to that extent as above stated. Other parts of the sentence is kept intact.
Registry is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the concerned court so as to secure the appellant/accused to serve sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu