Bangalore District Court
The State By Rajaji Nagar vs A1. Manjula .M on 17 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ACMM, BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA(LAW), LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.896/2013
Dated : On this the 17th April, 2023
Complainant: The State by Rajaji Nagar
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: A1. Manjula .M,
W/o Late Narayanakumar,
Aged about 50 years,
A2. Madhumohan Kumar,
S/o Late Narayanakumar,
Aged about 26 years,
A3. Kum. Ramya,
D/o Late Narayanakumar,
Aged about 19 years,
All are R/at No.48/1,
5th Cross, 7th Main,
Srirampura, Bengaluru.
(A1 to A3 Split up)
A4. K. Srinivasa,
S/o M. Krishnamurhty,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.25, 3rd Main,
4th Cross, RPC Layout,
Vijayanagara, 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By A1 to A3 Sri. Tilak and Vidya, A4 Sri. L.
Ashwatha Narayana Advt.)
2 CC.893/2013
Date of commission of offence : 17.09.2010
Date of report of the offence : 04.06.2011
Name of the Complainant : D.V.N. Raju
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 29.07.2019
Date of Closing of evidence : 22.02.2023
Offences complained are : u/s 468, 471, 420,
201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PSI of Rajaji Nagar Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4 for the offences
punishable u/s 468, 471, 420, 201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34
of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
That the mother of the complainant was the owner
of the property bearing New No.42 Old No.339 situated
at 57th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajaji Nagar which was
acquired through a gift deed. After the death of the
3 CC.893/2013
mother of the complainant, the complainant became the
owner of the said property and the khatha and other
documents were transferred in the name of present
complainant. When the matter stands like this, the
accused No.1 to 4 in order to knock off the said
property, by creating conspiracy created a forged GPA in
the name of the accused No.1 dated 17.09.2010 which
was shown to be executed by the present complainant
and also forged the seal and signature of CW7 who is
the notary public in the said GPA and on the same day,
on the basis of said GPA, the accused No.1 to 3 had
executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No.4
relating to the said property. Thereafter when the Senior
SubRegistrar of Rajaji Nagar, SubRegistrar Office, had
verified the said GPA, he found that the accused have
forged the signature of the complainant and created the
said forged GPA, and based on the said forged GPA
executed sale deed and thereby cheated the
complainant. It is the further allegation against the
accused No.4 that when the investigating officer has
4 CC.893/2013
given notice to him to produce the original GPA for
investigation, the accused No.4 did not produce the
same and given the reply by stating that he lost the
said GPA and thereby he destroyed the important
evidence which is required for the present case.
Therefore complainant gave complaint against the
accused.
3. Initially the complainant filed private complaint
under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused and this
court had registered the said private complaint and
referred the same for investigation under Sec.156(3) of
Cr.P.C. to the Police Inspector of Rajaji Nagar P.S. who
filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the
offence punishable under Sec. 468, 471, 420, 201,
120(B) r/w Sec.34. After filing charge sheet, the
predecessor in office has taken cognizance of the
offences against the accused and summons was issued
to accused. In pursuance of summons, the accused
No.4 appeared before the court and he was enlarged on
bail. The accused No.1 to 3 were continuously absent
5 CC.893/2013
and they could not be secured inspite of issuance of
NBW against them. Hence, case against accused No.1 to
3 was split up.
4. Thereafter charge sheet copies were furnished to
the accused No.4 as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.
Heard about framing of charge. Therefore grounds to
frame charge. Hence charge framed and read over to
accused No.4. His answer is denial and claims to be
tried. Hence, the prosecution was given an opportunity
to establish the guilt of the accused.
5. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused it got examined only one witnesses as PW1 and
got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
Ex.P75. Since the PW1 subsequently during his cross
examination have compromised the case, examination
of other witnesses was dropped by this court.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence,
statement of the accused as contemplated u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. His answers to the incriminating
6 CC.893/2013
circumstances arised in the evidence was denial and
not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused.
8. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the mother of the complainant was the owner of the property bearing New No.42 Old No.339 situated at 57th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajaji Nagar through a gift deed. After the death of the mother of the complainant, the complainant became the owner of the said property and the khatha and other documents were transferred in the name of present complainant, when the matter stands like this, the accused No.1 to 4 in order to knock of the said property with common intention created conspiracy and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC?
7 CC.893/2013
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, the accused No.2 to 4 with common intention created a forged GPA in the name of the accused No.1 dated 17.09.2010 which was alleged to be executed by the present complainant and also forged the seal and signature of CW7 who is the notary public in the said GPA and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, the accused with common intention forged the seal and signature of CW7 who is the notary public in the said GPA and on the same day on the basis of said GPA, the accused No.1 to 3 had executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No.4 by presenting the forged documents as genuine and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 471 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the 8 CC.893/2013 same date, time and during the same transaction, when the Senior Sub Registrar of Rajaji Nagar, SubRegistrar Office had verified the said GPA, he found that the accused have forged the signature of the complainant and created the said forged GPA and based on the said forged GPA executed sale deed and thereby cheated the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 420 r/w 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the same date, time and during the same transaction, when the investigating officer had given notice to the accused No.4 to produce the original GPA for investigation, the accused No.4 with common intention did not produce the same and given the reply by stating that he lost the said GPA and thereby he destroyed the important evidence which is required for the present case and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201 r/w 34 of IPC?
6. What Order?
9 CC.893/2013
9. The findings of this Court on above points are as under: Point No.1 to 5: In the Negative Point No.6 : As per the final order for the following: REASONS
10. POINT No.1 to 5 : All these points are connected each other and in order to avoid the repetition of the said facts and appreciation of the evidence, all these points are taken up together for common consideration.
11. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the mother of the complainant was the owner of the property bearing New No.42 Old No.339 situated at 57th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajaji Nagar which was acquired through a gift deed. After the death of the mother of the complainant, the complainant became the owner of the said property and the khatha and other documents were transferred in the name of present complainant. When the matter stands like this, the accused No.1 to 4 in order to knock off the said property, by creating conspiracy created a forged GPA in the name of the 10 CC.893/2013 accused No.1 dated 17.09.2010 which was shown to be executed by the present complainant and also forged the seal and signature of CW7 who is the notary public in the said GPA and on the same day, on the basis of said GPA, the accused No.1 to 3 had executed the sale deed in favour of the accused No.4 relating to the said property. Thereafter when the Senior SubRegistrar of Rajaji Nagar, SubRegistrar Office, had verified the said GPA, he found that the accused have forged the signature of the complainant and created the said forged GPA, and based on the said forged GPA executed sale deed and thereby cheated the complainant. It is the further allegation against the accused No.4 that when the investigating officer has given notice to him to produce the original GPA for investigation, the accused No.4 did not produce the same and given the reply by stating that he lost the said GPA and thereby he destroyed the important evidence which is required for the present case. Therefore complainant gave complaint against the accused.
11 CC.893/2013
12. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused it got examined only one witness who is the complainant as PW1. The said witness in his examination in chief deposed the same version as stated by him in the private complaint. The prosecution got marked 75 documents through PW1 which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.75. The accused counsel during cross examination of PW1 got confronted two documents as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The accused counsel subjected the PW1 for cross examination. On perusal of the cross examination of PW1 dated 22.02.2023 the complainant has admitted that there was civil suit pending between himself and accused No.4 before the City Civil Court in OS No.1520/2011 and against the said judgment and decree, the accused No.4 had preferred a Regular First Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.780/2014 and the present complainant and accused No.4 had compromised the said suit and the present complainant had agreed to withdraw the present criminal case filed against the accused. The 12 CC.893/2013 accused counsel during cross examination of PW1 confronted the joint compromise petition filed in RFA No.780/2014 and also the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in FRA No.780/2014 which are marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
13. On careful perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, even though the said witness initially deposed about the allegation made against the accused, but he subsequently during his cross examination compromised the case. The Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 confronted by the accused during cross examination of PW1 reveals that the present complainant had filed a civil suit in OS.1520/2011 before the City Civil Court which was decreed in favour of the present complainant. Against the said decree the present accused No.4 preferred Regular First Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.780/2014 and in the said first appeal the present complainant and the accused No.4 had filed joint compromise petition as per Ex.D.1 and based on the said joint 13 CC.893/2013 compromise petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has passed the final order as per Ex.D.2. On perusal of the said Ex.D.2 it shows that the present complainant and accused have compromised the said civil case and there is direction by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to the parties to furnish the said compromise petition before this court for passing final judgment in the present case. Hence based on the Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 it is clear that the present complainant and accused have compromised the case. Since the complainant and accused compromised the case and the PW1 who is the complainant during his cross examination has admitted that he has withdrawn all the allegation made against the accused, there remained no evidence to the prosecution to establish the allegation made against the accused. The accused No.4 is entitle for benefit of doubt.
14. It is the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that no man should be punished unless the guilt against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. As it is 14 CC.893/2013 discussed above the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitle for benefit of doubt. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 468, 471, 420, 201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence for the said reasons this court answer point no.1 to 5 in negative.
15. POINT No.6: In view of discussion held on above points, this court proceeds to pass the following:
:: ORDER :: Acting under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4 is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 468, 471, 420, 201, 120(B) r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and surety shall stand cancelled.
Office to keep this case file record in split up case.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the of 17th April 2023) (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru 15 CC.893/2013 ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : D.V.N. Raju
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Private complaint Ex.P.2 : Mahazar Ex.P3,4 : Certified copy of roznama and evidence of PW1 in OS.1520/2011 Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Acquisition confirmation letter Ex.P6 to9 : Four Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.P10 : Certified copy of death certificate Ex.P11 : Certified copy of reply notice dated 07.07.1988 Ex.P12 : Certified copy of certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P13 : Certified copy of Death certificate Ex.P14 : Certified copy of certificate issued by BBMP Ex.P15 : Certified copy of reply notice dated 12.06.2001 Ex.P16 : Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.P17 : Certified copy of letter issued by BESCOM Ex.P18 : Certified copy of electricity and water bills 16 CC.893/2013 Ex.P19 : Certified copy of acknowledgement given by BWSSB Ex.P20 : Certified copy of acknowledgement and water bill Ex.P21 : Tax paid receipts Ex.P22 : NCR acknowledgement Ex.P23 30: Certified copy of sale deeds Ex.P31 : Certified copy of property publication certificate Ex.P32 : Certified copy of national population register Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of acknowledgement Ex.P34 : Certified copy of recept Ex.P35 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.P36 : Certified copy of certificate Ex.P37 : Certified copy of Form1 Ex.P38,39 : Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.P40 : Certified copy of acknowledgement Ex.P41 : Certified copy of GPA Ex.P42 : Certified copy of Form60 Ex.P43 : Certified copy of letter dated 02.09.2011 Ex.P44 : Certified copy of note15 Ex.P45 : Certified copy of RTI letter Ex.P46 : Certified copy of application Ex.P47 : Certified copy of GPA Ex.P48 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.P49,50 : Certified copy of khatha extract 17 CC.893/2013 Ex.P51,52 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P53 : Certified copy of gift deed Ex.P54 : Certified copy of Reply notice Ex.P55 ; Certified copy of order passed in W.P. No.4681/12 Ex.P5658: Certified copy of electricity bills Ex.P5962: Certified copy of telephone bills Ex.P6364: Certified copy of security service bills Ex.P65 : Certified copy of judgment and decree passed in OS.1520/2011 Ex.P66 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate Ex.P67 : Certified copy of IGR and CS remainder Ex.P68 : Certified copy of court order register Ex.P69 : Certified copy of Sale deed Ex.P70 : Certified copy of Form60 Ex.P71 : Certified copy of note issued by BBMP Ex.P72 : Certified copy of mortgage deed Ex.P73 : Certified copy of agreement Ex.P74 : Certified copy of endorsement
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution Nil
4. List of witnesses and documents on Defense side Nil (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru