Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 07.10.2014, the accused fraudulently produced forged school transfer certificate to Regional Passport Office, Koramangala to obtain passport and thereby dishonestly induced and cheated the Government and thereby she has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused furnished fabricated school transfer certificate as a genuine document knowing fully well that, it is a fabricated document and thereby she has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.471 of IPC?

13. CW.2/PW.2-Tulasimani in her evidence has deposed that, the PSI of Koramangala police station visited their school on 08.09.2015 and asked her to verify the school transfer certificate whether it is a genuine document or fabricated document. On verification, she noticed that no document is available in the name of accused. Accordingly, she gave Ex.P.2 letter to the PSI. Ex.P.4 is the document, which was shown by the PSI for verification.

14. CW.3/PW.3-Rudrappa Gurikar, in his evidence has stated that, while he was working as PSI of Koramangala police station, he had received Ex.P.1 complaint through tapal on 07.09.2015. On the basis of that complaint, he registered FIR as per Ex.P.5. On 20.09.2015, he received Ex.P.6 letter along with copies of online application submitted by the accused, school transfer certificate, election identity card, aadhar card, BPL-ration card and joint marriage affidavit. On 09.09.2015 he sent a requisition to furnish report regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.4. On 10.09.2015, he received Ex.P.2 report from the head mistress of Sevashrama Hgh school, Srirampura, wherein it was stated that, Ex.P.4 was not issued from their school. During the course of investigation the accused was not found. After the completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused.

21. The PW.3 in his cross examination admits that, he had not tallied the documents received from passport office with the documents available with the accused. He did not even enquire the person, who uploaded online application. He admits that, generally in cheating cases, they call the accused for enquiry. But, in the present case, the IO admits that, he had not called the accused for investigation and he has not arrested her.

22. From the contents of Ex.P.1, it appears that, the passport office itself called the report regarding the genuineness of the school transfer certificate and not the police. But, PW.2 stated that, the PSI of Koramangala police station visited their school to know the genuineness of school transfer certificate of the accused. To the contrary, the PW.3 stated that he had sent a requisition seeking report regarding the genuineness of Ex.P.4 to the head master of Sevashrama High School on 09.09.2015. All these aspects are contrary to each other.

26. In the present case, the IO has not collected any documents to know the maker of Ex.P.4. There are no materials on record to hold that the accused herself is the maker of Ex.P.4. Making of a document is different than causing it to be made. There is no evidence on record to hold that, Ex.P.4 school transfer certificate was furnished by the accused.

27. The PW.3 being an IO did not call upon the accused to produce her school transfer certificate, so as to say that Ex.P.4 is the copy of same document, which the accused possesses with her. Hence, it cannot be accepted that, the accused herself forwarded Ex.P.4 school transfer certificate along with Ex.P.3 application. If we read the evidence of PW.1 to 3 in comparison with each other, then it appears that, there is no evidence on record to show that, the accused has fabricated Ex.P.4 and furnished the same to Regional Passport office dishonestly by giving false information to obtain passport and thereby cheated the Government.