Karnataka High Court
M Govindaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1081/2008
BETWEEN:
1. M.GOVINDARAJU
S/O. MUNISWAMY MODALIYAR
(CORRECT NAME IS
M.GOVINDARAJAN S/O.MUNISWAMY)
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
2. G.SENTHIL KUMAR
S/O.M.GOVINDARAJU, 30 YEARS
3. KUM. G.INDUMATHI
D/O M.GOVINDARAJU, 27 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O G.M.S. NILAYA
2ND CROSS, 2ND WARD
KAMMAGONDANAHALLI, JALAHALLI WEST
BANGALORE - 560 015. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI G.SURESH, ADV. FOR APPELLANTS 2 & 3; APPEAL
AGAINST APPELLANT NO.1 ABATES V.C.O.DT.26.02.2014.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASOORU GATE POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2008,
PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.50/2006, ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE
CITY (C.C.H.NO.17), CONVICTING APPELLANTS-ACCUSED 1 TO
3 FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 196, 198, PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 193 PART (II) IPC, 420 R/W 34 IPC AND ALSO
FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(ix) OF
THE SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned Special Judge has convicted appellants (hereinafter referred as 'accused 1 to 3') for offences under sections 196 & 198 IPC, punishable under section 193 Part II IPC, 420 r/w 34 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, accused 1 to 3 have filed this appeal.
During pendency of this appeal, accused No.1 died. On 26.02.2014, this court on verification of death certificate of accused no.1 and the report submitted by the Assistant 3 Commissioner of Police, Halsoor Gate Sub-Division, Bangalore, has recorded abatement of appeal as it relates to accused No.1 namely M.Govindaraju.
2. I have heard Sri G.Suresh, learned counsel for accused 2 & 3 and Sri B.Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
3. The trial court framed the following charges:-
1. That you accused nos.1 to 3, being native of Vilanga Kuppan Village, Vanambadi Taluk, North Arcot Dist., Tamil Nadu, belong to Hindu-Mudaliar community, with dishonest intention and to deprive the SC and ST people, obtained Adi Dravida Caste Certificate on 8.7.1999, furnishing false information to the concerned Authorities and thereby you A1 to A3, committed an offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC and within my cognizance.
2. It is further alleged that you accused no.2 Sandeel Kumar and you, A3-Indumathi, with intention to secure a seat in CET, you A2 and A3 have used Adi Dravida Caste Certificate, 4 which was obtained by false information knowing it to be false and thereby you A2 and A3, committed an offence punishable under Sec. 196 of IPC and within my cognizance.
3. It is further alleged that you accused no.2 Sandeel Kumar and you, A3-Indumathi, with intention to secure a seat in CET, you A2 and A3, have used Adi Dravida Caste Certificate, as True certificate known to be false, and thereby you A2 and A3, committed an offence punishable under Sec.198 of IPC and within my cognizance.
4. It is further alleged that you accused nos.1 to 3, being belong to Hindu-Mudaliar community, to deny the benefit to SC & ST people, created Adi Dravida Caste certificate, for your dishonest benefit and used it for securing scholarship, etc., and thereby you A1 to A3, committed an offence punishable under Sec.3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and within my cognizance.5
4. The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has convicted accused 1 to 3 for aforestated offences.
5. Though the learned trial Judge has convicted accused 1 to 3 for aforestated offences, on perusal of relevant provisions, I find that under section 196 IPC, using evidence known to be false is made punishable. Under section 193 Part II IPC, act of intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence is made punishable. Under section 198 IPC, act of using a false certificate as true certificate is made punishable.
6. In view of the above and death of accused No.1 and abatement of appeal as it relates to accused No.1, the following points would arise for determination:-
(1) Whether accused No.2 and 3 knowing full well that they do not belong to Adi Dravida caste, obtained caste certificates and used the same as genuine caste certificates and secured admission to I year B.E. in M.S.Ramaiah 6 Institute of Technology under Schedule Caste category, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 IPC?
(2) Whether prosecution has proved that accused 2 & 3 knowing full well that they belong to Adi Dravida caste, obtained caste certificates to show that they belong to Scheduled Caste and used the same to secure admission to I year B.E. in M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology at Bangalore with intention to deprive the eligible candidates of Scheduled Caste and availed benefits which were not available to them, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(ix) of the Act?
(3) Whether the prosecution has proved that
accused 2 & 3 had obtained false caste
certificates and used the same as true
certificates to secure admission to I year B.E. in M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology at Bangalore, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 198 IPC?
7. In my opinion, the proof of above points rests upon documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 7
8. The oral evidence of PW1-Sundaram, the younger brother of accused No.1 (since dead) would prove that accused No.1 and his parents are natives of Vilanga Kuppan Village, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu. PW1 has deposed; they belong to Mudaliyar Agamadi Caste. PW1 has deposed; he does not know if accused 2 & 3 had obtained any caste certificates to get admission to educational institutions. The evidence of PW1 does not reveal that accused 2 & 3 were responsible for getting caste certificates from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk.
9. At the relevant time, PW2-Venkatesh Patige was working as in-charge Principal of Nalanda P.U.College, wherein accused 2 & 3 had studied Pre-University Course. PW2 has deposed; when accused No.2 was admitted in Pre- University Course in aforestated college and his caste particulars had not been furnished.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to documents marked as Ex.P.28 & Ex.P.29. Ex.P.28 is the Admission 8 Register Extract of Seventh-Day Adventist Secondary School at Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore, wherein accused 2 & 3 had studied from I to X standard. In Ex.P.28, caste of accused No.2 is not stated. It is shown as 'Hindu'. The sub- caste of accused No.2 is not shown. Ex.P.29 is the application form for admission of accused No.3 to I standard in Seventh-Day Adventist Secondary School at Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore. This application form was submitted by the mother of accused 2 & 3 namely G.Mala. Therefore, accused 2 & 3 had not made false statements or declarations and they had not furnished false information when they were admitted to I Standard in Seventh-Day Adventist Secondary School at Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore.
11. It is needless to state that accused 2 & 3 were too young when they were admitted to I standard in Seventh- Day Adventist Secondary School at Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore. The particulars for their admission to I Standard were furnished by their parents. Therefore, accused 2 & 3 9 cannot be held guilty for the information furnished by their parents when they were admitted in said school.
12. The prosecution has relied on caste certificates stated to have been issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. These documents are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6. Accused No.1 (since deceased) has produced original certificates marked as Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5. Accused No.1 (since dead) has deposed that he had obtained these caste certificates. The prosecution has not examined the Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk to prove that accused 2 & 3 had submitted applications to get caste certificates. In these caste certificates, it is shown that accused 2 & 3 belong to Adi Dravida Caste.
13. In view of failure of the prosecution to prove that these caste certificates were issued on the applications/declarations submitted by accused 2 & 3, they cannot be held guilty for the acts committed by their father- accused No.1 (since dead).
10
14. Accused No.1 (since dead) had given evidence and also produced documents. The Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk had issued order dated 12.07.2005 (Ex.P.40), withdrawing caste certificates issued in favour of accused 1 to 3, pursuant to the order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee of Bangalore Urban District on 21.06.2004. This document is marked as Ex.P.42.
15. On perusal of this order, we find that accused No.1- M.Govindaraju in order to obtain admission to his children (accused 2 & 3) had submitted applications, by falsely declaring himself as a person belonging to Schedule Caste and obtained caste certificates of accused 2 & 3. Therefore, the District Caste Verification Committee, Bangalore Urban District passed an order to withdraw caste certificates issued to accused 1 to 3 in terms of Ex.P.42. The caste certificates marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and the order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee, Bangalore Urban District, are not sufficient to prove that caste certificates of 11 accused 2 & 3 were obtained by accused 2 & 3 or accused 2 & 3 had furnished false information to obtain caste certificates. On the other hand, the order passed by District Caste Verification Committee, Bangalore Urban District, would reveal that accused No.1 had furnished false information, declaring himself as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and obtained caste certificates of accused 2 & 3 to avail benefits available to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste, in the matter of education and employment.
16. The oral evidence of PW3-R.Rachaiah, who had set law into motion does not advance the case of prosecution. PW3 has lodged first information on the basis of information received by him from others.
17. At the relevant time, PW4-K.Rajanikanth was the Principal of M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology at Bangalore. PW4 has deposed; accused 2 & 3 were admitted to said college on the basis of letters of allotment issued by 12 C.E.T. and they were admitted under Scheduled Caste category.
During cross-examination, PW4 has admitted that on production of allotment letter issued by C.E.T. at Bangalore, college authorities will not verify or go into the details of caste of a student.
18. From perusal of admission register (Ex.P.13 & Ex.P.14), we find that accused 2 & 3 were admitted to I year B.E. in M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology under Scheduled Caste category.
19. Now, the crucial point for determination is:-
"Whether accused 2 & 3 had furnished false information regarding their caste when they were admitted in M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology at Bangalore?"
20. As already stated, accused No.1 (since dead), who was the father of accused 2 & 3 had furnished false information to obtain caste certificates from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. The District Caste Verification Committee, 13 Bangalore Urban District, after holding due inquiry and after hearing accused no.1, withdrew caste certificates of accused 2 & 3, which had been issued on the information furnished by accused No.1.
21. The evidence of PW6-Basavaraju relates to registration and investigation of the case.
22. Accused No.1-M.Govindaraju (since dead) was examined as DW1. DW1 has deposed; he belongs to Adi Dravida caste; he was a native of Vilanga Kuppan Village in Tamil Nadu State; he had obtained caste certificates from Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk.
During cross-examination, DW1 has admitted that on 31.10.2003, he had appeared before District Caste Verification Committee. DW1 has denied suggestion that he had furnished false information to obtain false caste certificates of accused 2 & 3.
23. On consideration of the above oral and documentary evidence, we find that accused No.1 was responsible for 14 furnishing caste particulars of accused 2 & 3 when they were admitted to I standard in Seventh-Day Adventist Secondary School at Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore and later to Pre-University Course in Nalanda Pre-university College. Accused No.1 by furnishing false information that he belongs to Adi Dravida caste had obtained caste certificates from the Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk. The Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk, pursuant to the order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee after holding an inquiry had subsequently withdrawn caste certificates issued to accused 2 & 3. The evidence adduced by prosecution is not sufficient to hold that accused 2 & 3 had furnished false information to obtain caste certificates from Tahsildar of Bangalore North Taluk and also to obtain admission to I year B.E. in M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology at Bangalore. The learned trial Judge, without considering the evidence with reference to each of the accused has fastened vicarious criminal liability on accused 2 & 3 by invoking section 34 IPC, though he had not framed 15 charge against accused 2 & 3 under section 34 IPC. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 2 & 3 cannot be sustained.
24. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. Accused 2 & 3 are acquitted of offences under sections 196 & 198, punishable under section 193 Part II IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 420 r/w 34 IPC. Accused 2 & 3 are also acquitted of an offence punishable under section 3(1)(ix) of the Act r/w 34 IPC. In view of death of accused No.1 during pendency of this appeal, appeal against him abates. If accused 2 & 3 have deposited fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment, the same shall be refunded to them.
The bail bonds executed by accused 2 & 3 stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN.