Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Ld. Advocates for the accused and complainant has argued as per their stand before the trial Court.

12. A perusal of the records of the trial Court reveals that, the trial Court has examined in all 5 witnesses. Pw.1- R.Premaraj is the complainant and he has deposed that, while he was working as Registrar of Evaluation at Bengaluru University he received marks card concerning to the accused from State Bank of Mysore, Malleshwaram Branch on 24.01.2004 for verification and report. On verification, he found that the registration number found on the said document does not tally with the registration number of that particular academic year. The Convocation Certificate was bearing the date, prior to the convocation date. The convocation certificate will be issued only after 5 months from the date of convocation. On verification, he found that the said documents were forged and created. In that regard he issued a letter as per Ex.P.1. He has also deposed that on 31.01.2004 the convocation of the Bengaluru University was not held. Further he has deposed that, the signatures finding place on Exs.P.2 to 4 were not the signatures of Registrar of Evaluation at that time.

14. Moreover, the Convocation certificate will be issued only after receiving the prescribed fee, the accused could have produced the receipt of the Bengaluru University to show that she had paid prescribed fee to obtain the convocation certificate from the University. But the accused has not produced any such documents. Further, this Court is of the opinion that, Ex.P.16 clearly reveals that the Registrar of Evaluator who signed on Exs.P.13 and 14 was not at all working at the relevant period of time and the convocation certificate i.e., Ex.P.16 does not bear the distinctive Hologram of Bengaluru University.

17. Pw.3- Smt.Puttamma is the Police-Inspector / I.O. She has deposed regarding the investigation and filing of charge sheet after conclusion of investigation.

18. Pw.4- K.H.Nanjegowda was the Registrar of Evaluation at the relevant period has deposed that one Hanumanthappa was not the Registrar at the relevant period. He was the Registrar during the relevant period. The signature finding place on Ex.P.4 is not his signature. He has also deposed that the signature on Ex.P.15 Convocation Certificate resembles the signature of V.C one Thimmappa, but it is not his signature. The convocation for the year 2004 was held in the month of February. Before the convocation was held, the Ex.P.15 was sent to him for verification. He has replied that the said documents are not genuine documents and complaint came to be filed regarding the same as per Ex.P.9. Nothing much is elicited in the cross- examination of Pw.4. The accused has failed to prove that for the year 2004 the convocation was held before issuing of convocation certificate to the accused. Pw.4 has categorically deposed that the convocation was held in the month of February 2004. Hence for the afore said reasons the Court is of the opinion that the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of the prosecution.

19. Pw.5- R.Sudharshan is the Assistant Registrar of Bengaluru University. He has deposed that the convocation certificate bearing No.011 EX 005, A-39 AMIEX- 2352 was not issued from the Registrar of University and the said convocation certificate belongs to some other person. Though in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not given any statement before the police as per Ex.P.1. But it does not mean that the Convocation Certificate Ex.P.15 is the certificate issued by the Bengaluru University. The accused has to prove that she appears for the degree examination at the relevant period held by Bengaluru University and she completed her graduation as per Exs.P.12 to 15.