Karnataka High Court
Sri R.N.Sharnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200060/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.200061/2015
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200060/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri R.N.Sharanappa S/o Nagappa,
Age : 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Hampanur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 24.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.1039/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.49/2015 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.200061/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri Govindraj S/o Rangappa,
Age : 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Chikkabennur Village,
Tq & Dist : Chitradurga.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Through Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the
impugned judgment dated 22.11.2009 passed by the
learned Prl. JMFC-II at Raichur in C.C.No.924/2002 and
also set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.09.2015
3
passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Raichur in
Crl.A.No.67/2014 and consequently be pleased to acquit
the petitioner for the alleged offence.
These revision petitions coming on for Final Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These two revision petitions are filed against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in CC No.1039/2002 by the Court of Prl. JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated 07.10.2014 passed in C.C.No.236/2009 by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur against the revision petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa and the order dated 23.11.2009 passed in C.C.No.924/2002 by the court of Prl. JMFC-II, Raichur and order dated 26.12.2014 passed in C.C.No.235/2009 by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raichur against the revision petitioner -Govindarju N.R.
2. The details of the criminal case, appeals punishment, default sentence are as under :-
In respect revision petitioner-R.N.Sharanappa (CC No.236/2009 dated 07.10.2014) 4 Criminal Appeal Offence Punishment Fine Default sentence 465 & 471 01 year `5,000/- 03 months IPC Crl.A.No.49/2014 468 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months 473 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months 420 IPC 04 years `5,000/- 06 months In respect revision petitioner-Govindraju N.R -
(C.C.No.235/2009 dated 26.12.2014) Criminal Appeal Offence Punishment Fine Default sentence 465 IPC 01 year 1,000/- 03 months 468 IPC 04 years 5,000/- 01 year Crl.A.No.67/2014 471 IPC 01 year 1,000/- 03 months 473 IPC 04 years 5,000/- 06 months
3. Brief facts of these cases are as under :-
PSI, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Raichur filed charge-
sheet against the revision petitioners herein and against one Umashankar for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The said charge-sheet came to be filed after investigating a complaint. Whereunder, it is contended that on 15.12.2001 at the time of interview for the post of the Teacher held in Government Boys Junior College headed by Deputy Director of Public Instructions 5 (for short, 'DDPI') the revision petitioners submitted a fake marks cards. The revision petitioners succeeded in the interview and thereafter, the documents were collected from the revision petitioners. On collection of the documents, the same were sent for verification to the respective Government Departments. On such verification, it was noticed that the marks card of Sharanappa and Teacher Certificate Higher (TCH) marks of card pertaining to Govindraju were found to be fake marks cards and whereby they cheated the DDPI. The matter was investigated thoroughly and then charge-sheet came to be filed.
Thereafter, presence of the accused persons were secured before the learned trial Magistrate. The charge was framed and accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held.
4. In order to prove the cases, in both the revision petitions the prosecution examined number of witnesses comprising of DDPI and Secretary of Karnataka 6 Secondary Education Examination Board (KSEEB). In fact the documents including the fake marks cards and letters issued by the competent authority were relied upon. Thereafter, accused statement as contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded wherein accused persons denied all the incriminatory materials founds against them. However, the accused person did not place any material evidence on record to controvert the version of the prosecution witnesses by examining themselves or filing necessary written submission as is contemplated under Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C.
5. Thereafter, learned trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and passed an order of conviction and sentence as referred in table supra.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners approached first appellate court in Criminal Appeal Nos.49 and 67 of 2014 as referred to supra. Learned Judge in the first Appellate Court secured the records and after hearing the parties, dismissed the 7 appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the revisions petitioners are before this court in these revision petitions.
8. In the Revision Petitions, the following grounds are raised:
In Crl.R.P.No.200060/2015
x The impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and records against the principles of natural justice.
x Both the courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved guilt of the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt.
x Both the courts below are convicted the petitioners only on the evidence of interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to adduce independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for.
x The petitioner who has studied in the institution recognized by the pre university board and completed his course the institution has issued marks card the very same marks cards are produced before the authority. The petitioner not concerned to the issue.8
x It is submitted that the petitioner himself says that he has not applied for the post of teacher as he has ready taken defense in the appeal.
x There is a contradiction, omission improvement in the evidence of the prosecution same has not been considered by both the courts below, which is led to passing of the impugned judgment challenged in the above revision.
x That the P.W.2, 4 have toured hostile. The both the courts below relied and considered the evidence of Pw 2 and 4 and convicted the petitioner, on that judgment passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside.
x It is submitted that the prosecution has not produced material to show that the petitioner has forged the documents.
x That the prosecution has failed to prove that the who has lodged complaint has not been proved which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, same has not been considered by both the courts below. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for x Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice."9 In Crl.R.P.No.200060/2015
x The impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and records against the principles of natural justice.
x Both the courts below have failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved guilt of the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubt.
x Both the courts below are convicted the petitioner only on the evidence of interested witnesses and the prosecution has failed to adduce independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for.
x That the P.W. 3 panch witness has toured hostile and P w 4 has not supported the prosecution version in the chief examination, and he has been treated as hostile witness and permission has been granted to cross examine the said witness by the prosecution, in the cross examination he has supported the version of the prosecution in the cross examination the P.W. 4 has supported the version of the prosecution. The both the courts below relied and considered the evidence of P w 4 and convicted the petitioner, on that judgment passed by both the courts belo are liable to be set aside.
x It is submitted that the prosecution has not produced material to show (5) that the petitioner has forged the documents.
10x That the prosecution has failed to prove that the who has lodged complaint has not been proved which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, same has not been considered by both the courts below. Hence the indulgence of this Hon'ble court is sought for.
x That the prosecution has failed to prove that where the documents were recovered since the pancha witness has not supported the version of prosecution conviction in the absence of the same is not proper.
x Even otherwise viewed from any angle, the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice."
9. On behalf of the revision petitioners, Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki vehemently contended that both the courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record while convicting the accused person for the offences alleged against them.
10. He also contends that the revision petitioners had no hand in the marks cards being given to them and they were not knowing that it is fake marks card and in fact they themselves have been cheated by Umashankar 11 who has also been convicted and he is now reported to be dead and sought for allowing the revision petitions.
11. Alternatively, Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki contends that the accused persons who are revision petitioners namely Sharanappa is aged about 46 years and Govindraju is aged about 42 years and they have married and well settled in the family and they eaking out their livelihood through agricultural work and at this juncture of time, if they are sent to imprisonment the entire family of the revision petitioners would be put to great hardship and sought for grant of probation by taking lenient view or by enhancing the fine amount.
12. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that both the courts below have rightly appreciated the material evidence on record while recording an order of conviction of the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and having regard to the nature of the offences alleged against the accused persons, this court cannot grant probation to the accused 12 persons and sought for dismissal of the revision petitions in toto.
13. In view of the rival contentions, having regard to the scope of the Revisional jurisdiction, the following points that would arise for consideration are:
"1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate confirmed that accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is suffering from legal infirmity, error of jurisdiction, patient factual defects or perversity and thus, calls for interference?
2. Whether the sentence is excessive?"
14. In the case on hand, the letter issued by the Competent Authority shows that the marks cards produced by the revision petitioners at the time of interview is fake marks card. Revision petitioner-Sharanappa produced PUC marks card whereas revision petitioner-Govindaraju furnished the TCH marks card. The competent authority 13 after verification of the records at their end found that the marks cards produced by the revision petitioners are concocted and forged for the purpose of obtaining the Government job namely for the post of Teacher.
15. The said aspect of the matter is proved by prosecution by producing necessary oral and documentary evidence on record.
16. Knowingfully well that the marks cards of the revision petitioners are fake and concocted one, the revision petitioners has appeared for the interview for the post of Teacher in the Government Boys Junior College, headed by DDPI.
17. It is pertinent to note that at the time of joining the post of the teacher itself, the accused persons have gone to the extent of producing a fake marks cards in order to obtain the Government job. The said aspect of the matter having been successfully proved by placing necessary oral and documentary evidences on record. 14
18. Learned trial Magistrate has discussed in detail about the conduct of the accused and the verification made by the competent authority and also the original marks cards produced by the accused/revision petitioners and on verification the same is found to be fake one and the signature found in the marks cards is also forged. Thereby all the ingredients required to attract the offence alleged against the stood proved by placing cogent and convincing evidences on record.
19. Learned Judge in the first appellate court while reappreciating the material on record in the appeals filed by the revision petitioners, not only concurred with the finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate but has also supplemented the reasons for maintaining the order of conviction. While so doing, the learned Judge in the first appellate Court has also specifically referred to the oral evidence of PW.7 wherein the registration number of the accused persons and the case against the accused persons and the marks obtained by them and also the seal 15 that is affixed on the fake marks cards has been taken note of and a factual finding has been recorded by the first appellate court that the prosecution is successful in establishing that accused persons have concocted marks cards for the purpose of obtaining a government job for the post of Teacher.
20. This court having regard to the limited scope in the revisional jurisdiction, reconsidered the entire material on record.
21. As could be seen from the material available on record, the revision petitioners appeared before the DDPI in Government Boys Junior College, Raichur for attending the interview for the post of Teacher. After successfully completing the interview, they have furnished the marks cards. Revision petitioners namely Sharanappa has produced the marks card of PUC whereas Govindarju has produced the marks card of TCH. As per prescribed procedure, the office of the DDPI sent the marks cards for the purpose of verification. However, to the utter surprise 16 of the DDPI, the marks cards produced by the revision petitioners were found to be concocted and a complaint came to be lodged in this regard. The police after thorough investigation found that the marks cards produced by the revision petitioners were concocted for the purpose of obtaining the Government job. All these factors have been sufficiently established by the prosecution by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that none the prosecution witnesses did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity against the revision petitioners herein. Under such circumstances, why would be the DDPI or the investigating agency foist a false case against the revision petitioners is a question that remains enhance.
22. Under these circumstances, having reconsidered the material evidence on record this court is of the considered opinion that there is no legal infirmity or perversity or patient factual defect or error of jurisdiction in both the trial courts regarding finding that the revision 17 petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
Regarding point No.2
23. The trial Magistrate has passed an order of sentence against the revision petitioners as referred to supra.
24. It is no contended by on behalf of the revision petitioners that Sharanappa is aged 46 years and Govindaraju is aged about 42 years. During the trial, Sharanappa has spent about 10 days in custody and Govindaraju has spent about 20 days in custody.
25. Taking note of the fact that revision petitioners are aged 46 years and 42 years respectively and they have now well settled in the society by eking-out their livelihood through agricultural work, at this juncture if they are sent to the jail, not only the revision petitioners would be put to great hardship and injury but also their family would also 18 suffer a lot. Taking note of the fact that they are age barred and they are unable to apply for any government job in future, this court is of the considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of `75,000/- each of the revision petitioners for the aforesaid offences in all and custody period already undergone by them as referred to supra would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered and following :
ORDER The revision petitions are allowed in part.
While maintaining the order of conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 473 and 420 of IPC, the period spent by revision petitioners for a period of 10 days and 20 days respectively in the custody is treated as period of imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of `75,000/-
inclusive of the fine amount imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate court.19
Time is granted to pay the fine amount till 15.02.2022.
It is made clear that if revision petitioners fail to deposit the fine amount the order of the trial Court confirmed by the first Appellate court stands restored automatically.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn