Rafique @ Ravoof vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rafique @ Ravoof vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL.{_§RE

DATED TI-{IS THE 018? DAY OF DECEMBER A' 

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE M'R.JUSfi'ICE: 4N;,t§;L\IA1'\I'D¥§"    _ 

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0;--1150/20%. A ' '
BETWEEN: ' .   . E.  
E. Raﬁque Alias Ravoof  »

S/o Mohammed Ghouse Sab  --

Aged about 30 Years"   *  "

Occ : Onion Merchant,iKamb1i§--;opp3._'g  _

Avinahalli Road, Sagar, Qisfricﬁ Shim_0ga;' ,

2. Loopis alias' _Fra;1cis:1}e6pia:
S/0 Anthc;'I1yLQapis"._ '
Aged about. 55 Years '

Occ : 'l7'ai1o;:;"I\/Iarikaniiiia   V

Sagan DiSt1*i.c.t._:4Shimega._. -- '

3. Hassan' Sab, 'S/0. H*1sSaif1 Sab
Aged about. 55 Years 
ﬂee : Vege,tabive7E\/ierchant
4}--$Sagar, District: Shirnoga. ...APPELLAN'E'S

 V'  . (Ei%.y"S1f:i-;R.f3.ADes11paﬁtie, Advocate)

 .  S'tafe, ef Kazﬁamka. ...RESPONDENT
' {By Srivijayakumar Majage, HCGP)

" z appeal is ﬁled under section 37/M2] Cr.P.C., against
the judgment dated .14.06.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer, I

V, " £<'a__st Track Court, Shirnoga in S.C.No.135/1999, convicting the
- _ xapp_e13ants~accuseci 2 to 4 for an offence punishable under
 section 420 1'/W 34 {PC and sentencing them to undergo R1. for 3
iyears and pay ﬁne of Rs.5,0€30/~ each, in default to undergo SJ.

 for two months.



"I'l'1is appeal CO1"13iE'l§,_{ on for final liearing' this c1é1.Y_vt:ljie' .('3oiirt

clelit-'ei'c(i the following:
J U D G M E N T

Accused No.1 (since dead] (hereinafter referred to asV.*accuseVd._ 2' to 4.»)'5were c3f1arge"'r. sheeted for an offence pL1nisl1a'ble'L1r;der' sectiiojn r/W 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate that charge sheet discloses an offence section 489-13 r/w 34 IP03~v'i"l{ejfk;fore_. case to Sessions Court. assigned to Fast Track Court." the charge was framed.

The learned lJ'F_Last,:fIV.I=ack Court framed charge for an offence ;V5unis.]1al3lefU,_ndeli" section 489-B r/w 34 IPC against 2 to" tried them for aforestated offence and u'lt.ir1121'telyi-- held t:he'nrgu.ilty of an offence punishable under ' ,sectic=n"4fb2.«O«"'r/W 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo C" ._figorotisfirnprislonrnent for a period of three years and pay a fine c;r'R}:;5.000/- each. in default to undergo simple irnprisoiinient for a period of two months. Therefore. .ac'c\j«1sed 2 to 4 have filed this appeal. A K' 5. 'L K" It.'

- 3

2. I have heard Sri Dinesh. learned (:our1seEx.!Toi.f' act:-tiesed 2 to 4 and Sri Vijayixtumar Majage. learned PiCG~§ _ V'

3. in brief. the ease of prosecution isdaisdfolliowszi A' PW4-Tokyanaika is the resident oi'bi..Ti~IaE'iii'1aE{ot5pa'1t Village. Shimoga District. is an: by occupation. PW4 knevf Dvétiring the year 1.988, PW4 had received a good yieid. PW4 §so'{d 'V:'52 for a sum of Rs."/"',100/i¥;'Viiifi'1ic"ii"he: iVti; 11i\.s house. Accused No.1 knexivis tliis:v.ed_jf2i..1__.O5.}l988, PW4 had gone to ShikarAi'pt1Lra. Pw_.4f '23:' RS.4:00/- with him. PW4 met accused No.1-. 'near Shiltaripura Bus Stand. Accused No.1 . Anioneywfroiii PW4, for which PW4 pleaded his time, accused No.1 told PW4 that he has an_idea.i.of..-inake money. Accused No.1 toid PW4 that his xyoung.e__r'3 brother is staying in Sagar) if certain amount is 1/ vp_aid' to him, in ifet.urn he would pay amount three times more than the amount paid to him. Thereafter, accused No.1 took PW4 to a shop. took out a currency note of f\; t 6, t,){(.~L,\_..C:».._.,\.5{L y 4 R520/W denomination and purchased one packe1_._ofebeedi:K Accused No.1 told PW4 that his younger b1*ot'fi're1* No.4} had currezncy notes similar tomidhe' nrle he on to the shopkeeper. Accused No. use the said currency notes'--£for'..ca11 t.1'a11s-actions--, Though V PW4 was reluctant, e;cc.used«e.rI'\?ci,."1':--.forcrbly '£0014; sum of Rs.1O0/W from PW4 {accused No.4]. Thereaf"{m:,:,« Accused No.1 took PW!-1» ..5_orr1eifnnrerddddaccused No.3 was give currency notes.

The1*eafter, in a car along with PW4 and reached nis3v:I1a.g'e'.«.c."Accused No.3 demanded PW4 to gi\fe~§'.n1o_3r1ey". had sum of Rs.6.600/~ with him and he ' gaveo ___to accused No.3. Accused No.3 gave a bag co.I1tair1Vir1'g'd*._1'5" bundles of currency notes of Rs.20/-- denominaf1o11 and asked PW4 to keep plastic bag containing V' b'un4_d1es' of currency notes in front. of God and pe1'form pooja before taking out 'oundles of currency notes from the bag. so 3 " "saying accused 2 to 4 left. the house of PW4. However, gm .5'/-

5 accused No.1 stayecl back in the house of V. was opened, PW-4 found faces on either side oi'1"e.e1ci'iA_ibuiidiied_ 1' had genuine currency notes and were counterfeit notes.

family naernbers of PW4 scolded:d'ccused 1 him. Accused No.1 told...l>W4,ithatt_:'he"'~.you1d1some} how get back his money from taecused No.4}. In the meanwhile. it would not be safe to keep' '5iQ_u1ni.e-rI'eit:_V1}_otes'---in':his_ house. Accused No.1 told xiiilie ']1h'e'i*'et;ore, PW4 burnt bundles of counterfeit In the meanwhile, PW6» K.P.Chandira1pI9a?1 S 'then Sub--Inspector of Police of Po1.i.Ac'e«.S_t_ation had intercepted a car driven by when he was proceeding towards Iiigiilirnail{o'p'if3€£{c:= developed suspicion and apprehended d1'it?e1f The said Manjunath informed PW6 that two persons' [later arrested and identified as accused 2 81 4] who Vmvelred travelling managed to escape. The driver of car took "PVV6 to the house of PW4. PW6 learnt the entire episode J\.;_ C .. .\__ E:-*C.x,~.(((;

6 from PW4. The first information was recorded by PW4. PW6 secured panchas, seized currency notes and some g(31'1L1i1'1r-f3; arrested accused No.1 near Hosur fake currency notes of tweng/V his Dossession and b1*oLI£§1¥*t..,..hin1.~~to' 'foi'ioe"V§Station. PW6 arrested other acou#s;ed," and submitted o}1'ar.%§3 ._.5}16i§t to 4 for an iPC.

siready hlearned Magistrate framed charge fonan =ofVfer__1ee._punishable under section 420 read Dt'1'1"i{1.§,§_.III"ia1. after examination 01' PWI to PW3 the .1ea-1fned'.M'agist1*ate held that offences are triable by the Cohuré: of' and committed the case to the Court of Sessio11sVin'terms of section 323 Cr.P.C.

" The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for an "offen&:e punlshabie under section 4898 read with 34 IPC.

fxg '7

4. During trial, PWI to PW6 were documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were material objects viz one bag plastic bag was marked as M._O.2.

as M.O.3, genuine currency 'niarlred and partially burnt V curterrc}/"'»..notes'"of ~'V3Rs.20/-- denorniriation and ash as M.C).5.

5. The leariled 'trial of evidence and on 'part;ies, recorded a findirigithat 'A¢u;<1'.¢n¢'y_;1ot§s.'j;mi¢h accused No.3 had passed on to PW'4._were'i1.ot~ccunte.rie'it notes. Therefore, an offence punishable under secti~on<489--B IPC was not attracted. The learnedv trial Judge has held accused 2 to 4 dishonestly part with a sum of Rs.6.600/~ and cheated _hi'n1_by eiiddilngi oyer 15 bundles of fake currency notes with one"gei1uirief:_1o:€.e on the face of each bundle. Therefore. the . learned trial' 'Judge held accused 2 to 4 guilty of an offence V.,:puri.i.sl1ab"le under section 420 1'/"W 34 EPC and sentenced _ {'11ei1t\.ia.S z1fg1'estated. {VA (IL Bx .W(-_£_ 8 , ,

6. in View oi' Coiivictioii of accused 2 to 4 for an..4jo£fen'c'e._ punishable under section 420 r/W 34 IPC, would arise for determination are:~ _ {1} Whether the prosecution has :g'_j'ro'ired 21.05.1988 betweengio a.1ii._"a'nd ' accused 2 to 4 dishoeries.tIy 'm'd.u_ced_l'.= Tokyanaika atfirst in-s«tlai1ce'--~..iAi1 Shikvaripiir.

thereafter iri "«--...lf,'11e PW4 in Nallinakoppa Village sum of Rs.6.(30{A)/.~.-,_ in accusepd '1 4 gave 15 llliiof. ilotes resembling gent1inle.Ve.ulrrei'1<ejf'~not.es Containing Rs.20/-- A'der:oiz1ii1atioi:. 'thereby committed an _ offence' piihis}1_abl--el under section 420 r/w 34 ll EPC'? V ~ the learned trial Judge has properly l'ap'pi'e-:;iai:ed evidence on record'? {f3)lWhether the impugned judgment calls for l 'interference?

{4} What. 0rder'?"

7. Before adverting to appreciation of necessary to state that the learned recording evidence of PW"! 8: PW2 thee:

informs.nt (PW4~Tokyanaika}, Vcon1nii1;tedV_A. to Court of Sessions, stating tliatljcillz-ase punishable under sectio:'i.5L89--£~"EP*C_:.'*

8. From the contents of first"inforn--xat1on. gifnd evidence of PW4, I find that 'lliejivas not; totally i'nn--oc_e_rit of the situation.

PW4 was avé?a1'e..'tl1éit"o.11,e"cét-nnot': geltgenuine currency notes three tinies -Inore -t_1_iaI1 'w1iat__ is f paid in exchange for such notes. Lcontei1.ts"o'I' ,fir*st'i11fo1°rnation would reveal that accused '1\ris'i.'%;ec1. the village of PW4 on several °'u;1{c=s. theptonductllioi' accused No.1, PW4 had reasons to e1';i.ciJsed No] Was offering either counterfeit cur1=e11cy.not§es or notes resembling genuine currency notes. V"Aft;er t1:.eA:'ir1cide11t.. PW4 had burnt counterfeito currency "notesf;1*esembling genuine currency notes and destroyed evidence and he has not informed the matter to police. N c»;''"

Therefore. PW4 was an accomplice in the acts sai.d_"to"11él1%§~l,, been cornrnitted by accused no.2 to 4.

9. In a decision reported in AIR Ellie .' QfBhi.1)a Doulu Patti Vs. State .oj'-f\gi'al1ctrc1_sf'ttra}, Court, referring to the provisionsiél/dipsections.ip_l$g-15: of the Evidence Act, has l l in H V "The Ac0I11binedV:l'ef.fe.ct_V 114, illustratiorgy {E3} imay _:.«he'«.VA"staied fas follows:

Acco1jdirlg__tti.. .t.1je"foifnie.r, which is a rule of law, an accornpliicpe is 'con'1pe«i.ent toj. give evidence and 1atter..__w--hich is a rule of practice it is' almo'st_.«aAliyv'ayc..:t1r=safe to convict upon his _testinio.ny aloneLTlheret'ore though the conviction an aceu":-:.epcviV_onVt.he testimony of an accomplice saidmto be illegal yet the Courts wiil, of practice, not accept the evidence soft ' particulars. There should be coVrrol;:ioration oi" the' approver in material particulars and qua each accused."

In the circumstances, the evidence of PW4, which i.s

-«in the nature ofev'ider1c.e of an accomplice. requires close {\:_ 5,.

scrutiny and it should be corroborated by evidence.._o'f»othe~_r 3 witnesses on material particulars. Therefore. it is-._r1ecessary' to refer to the evidence adduced 15resecut;i<OIi{' ahaVi*n'g regard to background of incident and:'1roie.}oiayed_--by

11. PWi--Laksh1'11ananaika is of On the date of giving evidence, i1.gdiiA."su»ffered baralytic stroke. The learned the learned Pubiic Prosecutor in examination-

in~chief of on a certain day, 12 years piriglﬂ No.1--Baba Sab took a sum of house of PW-4; accused No.1 was accompanied' by three; persons and told they would pay ."V'7L3")i'1"g~eV.t}:1"€ amount, Vinmrei,urn to what was paid by PW4 to A c~acQ_L1sed_TI'lQ."1 _V A Du:3ng,eross~exaII1ina'tion. PW] has deposed: accused to 4" were sitting in a car: entire transaction took piace PW4 and accused No. 1; PW4 handed over money to accused No.1: accused No.1 stayed in the house of PW4; the car Eeft the piace. gm; ,;:z~e»..££L:

Thus, from the evidence of PW], it is clear thai"

not implicated accused 2 to 4. PW} has transaction relating to exchange between PW4 and accused No. Froh3__tfhellevidleiice aof it is clear that the transactiorzl of:excl1ai;1ge.. o'F.ge:i1iii~/Fiiellliioltes vis~éi~vis notes i*esemb1i:ig ge.si1',iilr.ie'- lc"u.1jrenej/"'r1oVtes took; place in the house of PW4'. ll l

12. PW2-Kalaclisifi' hss on certain day duling the 4." counterfeit currency notes Rs.:?.(A)l/is;1;;f1<oniiriéi{i_on Iforn possession of accused No.1 on'-Hosur ,--~'Lhey prepared a mahazar as per Ex.P.1l"-aﬁ 1 1_.3C.p§m.= evideiice: of PW2 does not ﬁnd corroboration from lllthelviconiemsaof As per evidence of PWES. EX.P.1 .c:;1:jr1eVcAi;_ii.Q_l 'exissiieiice after recording first iriformation at 1'.'oo"'s;.m; .ci';:':;i.{ig the inaewenmg night. of 21/22.05.1988. 11 f is noi_el.ea1* from the evidence of PW2 as to legitimate l_j.biasii~:,1&essllhe had to go to E-iosur Village Road at 1 1.30 p.m. . 5;} that. day. I/V £.__,%u£.,w, 13

13. PW3--Rudra11aika has given evidence l'€1a{jvI?,§_:'-«."liL3, seizure of incrirninat.ir1g' articles from the liousei of"

Pakeeribai.

14. The evidence of PW4~Tokyanaii§.a transaction of exchange of cu1'ren.cy notes took7Vpla:ce._in his house. After accused 2 to 4 left of a car. PW4 found that bundles" given ; "h_i'rn'''~obontained notes resembling currency noteisatliere-forte the same. In the ci1'cltiIh1"1°sta;rieesV:ha'reasCr1a'ole*d'oubt would arise as to how theVV'i_nVestigat1~nfg.LEWS) prepared mahazar in the house of PW5 iridica_tin.g"tl'1e' seizure of incriminating articles ~' V. f1'orf1' the oose o£""x'?W_5,e.

V1" ;'e\g'.it1-ence of PW5~Pakeeribai is entirely inconsist.eI1t'ejgviil1 the Case of prosecution. PW5 has deposed; t.ransaetion Vol"exel'1ange of currency notes took place in the shed of her house, which is neither the case of * ;u)'ijobsectut.ion nor evidence of PW4. PW5 has deposed: she "had neither seen transaction that took place between PW4 14 and accused 1 to 4 nor she had seen PW4 giv'ingwgcnt:i:r;re currency notes to accused No.3.

16. The evidence of Pwemii.P.chendi§ap;%ie"--ee[1i~u%eeLigei«ing,I Officer) is also inconsisi1e1'1t and -incretliiqlle on PW6 has deposed: on he 'credible inforrnatiora regarding ol'sre1nc1al\vood from Na1l.inakoppa_; PweAvV1i,riie.m{e§i::th;e.i'V'eeh§§_r..to the Police Inspector: other staff proceeded lt'oxUsr&sﬂﬁisilinakoppa Village; at that time, alyvcar one"-A/Ia.11junath came from opposite directionlf on sieeiriglthe of police jeep, the car stopped; PW6 ;1e'arnt. that la'c'cusVedv2 to 4 and another person had V'tr2;ve1l.ed.i"inV" ca1', however accused no.2 to accused no.4 A'-:a.lighted.Vv'a»nd r"an}~ away from car: the said Marijunath took PW£i__i.o the of PW4; PW6 learnt the incident' from PW4 l"~:1Anc1 1*e.cv::i__rt:1ed first ir1.formation as per Ex.P.3 in the house of V."l'F'N5jifPW6 seized partially burnt counterfeit currency notes, ash of currency notes, a bag and a plastic bag from the house of PW5 and prepared mahazar per IEI,x.P.2. ,/\t' 4*"-

gk-\ ;

17. The contents of Ex.P.2 would reveal _ M.E).1 to M.€).5 took place in the house of PWE} "

wife of Thoiachanaika. I aiso HOti(?tlL_: fro'-1i;3A'1&A. Investigating Officer CPW6), V.i'n.steadV".of"

information by making use of oft :.i'r1for§,tr1ation report had used a orepiare first information report. between first 1nforrnat1on"':a:1j'd first In the first information 3 was registered at 02.30 /22.05. 1988. However, from "by the ieamecl Magistrate, 1 find. ;1"i~rst ir:{torrnatiorr' report had reached the learned dddvis/iagistrate 'at, 4 on 22.05.1988, though distance Ae--'oetween."'*l_aCe"of'jtncident and 'urisdictionai oiice station is . é _ _ _ _ 3 p about 10t~i{i:1oi'meters.

evidence of PW6 that he had apprehended aeeusgsd No.1 near Hosur road when he was returning from V' the house of PW4 iooks improbable. It looks unnatural that accused no.1 was in possession of counterfeit currency f\_§ . ¢:*.:£'\/1» CV'-r"& '

-16 notes even after the alleged exchange of notes thai...Vt.o'oiaV_ place in the house of PW4. The Investigating _ has not assigned any reason for seiz_i--ngv.of "

Rs.6,600/-, which according to accused No.3. From the entire»i'ii1vestigation, as to what had happened to vvhich according to case of v5vvas,.VvvdA'given to accused no.3. The having deposed that seiied ii«ffco'unteVrfeiL..currency notes of Rs.20/ §'tVdenont1.:ifriati:<:f§Ii' f7rorri"posdsession of accused no.1 had not madeany effor't:s"t«to'coinfirifn the same by sending those counterfeit ci.1rr'e1i1c;.._' n,ot'esdV to mint expert. it is in this we 1'i8_V43...i.O'C()I1Sid€1' evidence of PW4, who was vi.rtua1p1yv_an accompiice.

18.1 BeforeA}'advert,ing to the evidence of PW4, it is V"necessazfy"to refer to the contents of first information given As per first inforniation. accused No.1 had visited .o Hthde house of PW4 on several occasions before the date of V incident. Ail along. accused No.1 was inducing PW4 to part:

"N. 3*" (L 17 .... ..

with genuine currency notes in exchange for fake c.tirrén;(:3;"v~., notes. In the first infoririation. it is stated that o'n.__'a 1 day. accused No.1 met PW4 in S'n'iI{ar'i«pt1ra Accused No.1 introduced accused 2a'to and hirri that accused no.2 to 4 wotcv1_c1"*~giVeAhim. 'cui'ren'cy"riot:es in exchange for the ani-cunt Acc.I..ised No.1 insisted payment of accused No.1 that he does" not and he had kept the n1oney" told PW4 to hire a car iifto' toid accused No.1 that he :"d.oes'_ not Vtohhire a car. Therefore, PW4 had overstayed 'on't.-hat.Vd'ay*11Vin Sagar. On the following day, 4 left Sagar in a car and reached Na11'inakop*pa«Vi'i1lage. PW4 took accused 1 to 4 to the house oi'KPW15, VFW] was also present. In the presence of PWENNN8; PW4. paid a sum of Rs.6,5OG/»~ to accused ,:"~.NAAO.KTh€I'€af€.("3l', accused No.3, who was sitting in a car ~ handed over a bag containing bundles of currency notes 11 mé1H1"1d left that place. however. accused No.1 stayed in the {U _ xi .. '\/"- cg"

13 .... ..

house. When PW4 opened bag, he found containing a genuine currency note ---- denomination on the face of each buil1dle'and'l..the. 'the notes were resembling genuine otirrcuncy 'notes..,y'Fher.efore_, PW4 scolded accused No.1. Accused No.1, V15""\Fv'4l't.o get back his money from accused' and he advised PW4 to burn counterfeit: currency'13otes.:=Aclcio_rdir1g1y, PW4 burnt counterfeit. currency. _noij_es. ' l ' When 1?fW¥iV;was"exan{:;hedvbefore" Committal Court. he has .was frequently visiting his house; accused that he would get counterfeit cu1*r4ency..notes» _fro1'ln shine person at Sagar. PW4 did not Zaggrele transaction; even then accused No.1 was PW4 met accused No.1 at Shikaripura Bu's.__Sta11d,vifa7ho introduced accused 3 8: 4 and they went to hoteivu_:;ind took tea; for paying bill. accused No.3 gave a

--.Acu.rr_e'ncy note of Rs.20/~ and it was accepted by the owner it .. ___c-if hotel. PW4 rei;urne.d back to his house; on the following day, PW4 was taken to Sagar; i.hereafi.er they engaged a car f\E __ Xx' kwcié...

19 and returned back to the village of PW4 along w1:4h«..a¢'g.{i_se'@.'* 3 1 to 4; they reached the house of PW4 at house. PW4 handed over a sum No.3; in exchange, accused No.4 gave. bt1ndles_o,f "currency, '' notes of Rs.20/-- denoinination,dWhich had*b_een a paper and wrapped in a 4 "1deEi{"t}*1'at place; when PW4 opened had a genuine curre:1c3i»«L§i_'ote on its face and the rest of' were genuine notes;

PW4 No.1 assured PW4 that he woddldddget and advised PW4 to burn counterfeit "currency therefore. PW-4 burnt counterfeit V' _ notesi Vonihe following day. PW4 Visited the police V statioirand'lodged first information. the Sessions Court, PW4 has deposed: on the every he visited Shikaripur; accused No.1 took PW4 to it accused 1 to 4 and PW4 travelled in a car to the . U1 _.;house of PW4 at Nallinakoppa Village; PW4 removed a sum of Rs.6.600/-- from a trunk kept, in his house and handed S' , ru T, pt-W 5 2 Q over the same to accused No.3; at that time, accused, l\:'of.'Z?> was sitting in a car; in exchange of amount pai'd_l'byf=PW6i,e~ accused No.3 gave a bag cont'ainingjl5Vb'und'1.es .:0f_:cu_rre11--cy l"

notes of Rs.20/~ denomination and«e_advised 'PW4, taking out bundles, he shall oi' God and l>er'i'orn'1 Iboojai ""{'1'$QL1§A('§"C'l"'1#':%§'.'lVVEta'yQl:1" 'i1~l--..1_1*1e§ house after accused 2 to 4 left bundles and found except "the face of each bundle and the V resembling genuine CL11'1'eI1(:yH l 19'W._ZL""'sVcolded accused No.1:

accusedzl\Eo.:1 : would teach a lesson to accused N5;-4% {you11ge:llbruother of accused No.1) and get 'V._hack5¥his_f:1mo11ey§l"as.___ad~vised by accused No.1, PW4 burnt 'cot1'11t:erfeitt currency notes: thereafter at 1} 13,111.. PW6 visihtleld of PW4, recorded his statement and ' V registere'dV a case.

£12 V _ v _5'1'hus. E1S&€Vid€I1C€ oi PW4 given before Sessions Court, V, e_nl;i1"e transaction took place on 21.05.1988, the induceinent by accused No.1 was at 10.30 21.111. or ii a.m., 6\; 4 1 X' [,1-L \:"-~ (K0,-

21 on 21.05.1988. PW4 met accused 2 to 4 on 21.o5..1«o.ss.':;i;§a""< reached his house at 11.15 p.m.. on exchange of currency notes took 21.05.1988. Thus eviden.ce : of corroboration from the contents' he has stated that accused l1li'SHh0l»v1:S€ 5 01' 6 days prior to the date oi" PW4 to receive notes; u v§.C1,h"iV'Vcr1Cy notes in exchange in afnotint paid by him.

F__rorn-- the'.Ve_\_fid.er1ce"-...of . FW4, entire transaction of exchange xoi »cou'nterieib_t"'*crii'rency notes vis~a--vis genuine curr-enqr. notes tookl' place in his house. PW4 burnt V'e-:u.1'r;t,erE.eit._'currency notes in his house. A bag, a plastic bag. :ipat'tially burnt counterfeit. currency notes were seized V_fr'oni~i' his house. The evidence of PW-4 is entirely inconsistent. from seizure rnahazar and evidence of PW} & it PW1 has not deposed that he had kept Rs.6.€S00/~ in . house of PW5. PW4 has deposed that when he brought accused 1 to 4 to his house. PW} & PW5 were sleeping in f\§ 22 his house. PW4 has not deposed that PW} 8:

witnessed transaction oi" exchange of between PW4 and accused. From uitiis clear that he was interested in "

The investigating Officer [PW6}'zvuis.ited the 'hoi_ise*, of"PW4 therefore PW4 was forcecito lodge ihus we have divergent and opt/V4 regarding inducement, u and persons invoived in it it inducement was 5-6 days prior tohtiie In the evidence given before Corriniit.ta1 (x3ou_rt',' has stated that accused No.1 had statedE'uti3aitr~.«_his would give counterfeit, currency .notes"ex"c.lj1.ange to genuine currency notes. in the evi.dence~ guifven before Sessions Court, PW34 has stated that naccusedi' No.1 had assured to get notes resembling genuine '" iciirrency notes from his brother. The evidence in proof of __Finduceme11t. is not C0115-3i.S1.€l1t and credible. The evidence in proof of transaction of excthange of currency notes. place '\§ . 1 "'~ '\""'" if/V' 23 and time of exchange of currency notes involved in exchange of currency notes is and incredible. As already stated. 'V the transaction of exchange :o_iﬁ' either counterfeit currency or. rio_V_te'sr genuine currency notes. «_

19. In View of wiiat 'decision cited supra, the PW4 Cannot be not find corroboration frorn evidenceddofjrtlderwitnesses material aspects. I find the evidence of lothelrd is totally inconsistent. The evide:jn'cc.. oil v is rnutually destructive and finding corroboration from evidence I Th.e conduct of the Investigating Officer (FWFE) transparent'. The Investigating Officer had not brougz]:1t..Ali'irst iriforination report into existence at the point " -.Ao'i7._ti_i".ne and place mentioned in the first information report.

.. __'_El'l:1e Investigating Officer had not made efforts to recover genuine ctirrency notes, which according to PW"-4 had been T25 answer points 1 :31 2 in negative and point I~'J.<).'.£'.~."L"--i[1i.u affirmative.

21. In the result. I pass the i"011o\vii*1g:;...<«A. j. u The appeal is accepted. set aside. Accused 2 to 4' ttie file of Presiding Officeij. I~I*'ast_ .AA,/..'2_5gt_"_'_.Shim0ga, are acquitted of section 420 r/w 34 IPC. 'accused 2 to 4 stand cancelied. _Vam01.i:fit.._i_f any deposited by accused 2 to 4 shall is directed to send back recogds a1on§'v.rith cdpywoi' this judgment. SNN "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court