State vs R. Kalleshappa and Others

N. Ananda, J.—The respondents were tried and acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 465 of IPC and also for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The charges framed against the accused read thus:-

That you accused No. 1 to 5 in furtherance of your common intention of cheating CW-1 Sri. Gudadappa, deceased - Ramappa (father of C.W. 4) and C.W. 5 Sri. Kadappa with forgery, on 16/11/92 created a forged sale deed in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 94/14 of Neeragunda village in the name of you accused No. 2 an got it registered in the Sub-Registrar''s office by you accused No. 4 impersonating CW-1 Gudadapa and thus cheated CW-1 Gudadappa of said 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 94/14 and thus all of you are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

That you accused Nos. 1 to 5 in furtherance of your common intention of committing the offences of forgery and cheating, on 4/12/92 created a forged sale deed to defraud deceased Ramappa who is father of C.W.-4 Kalleshappa in respect of his 2 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 94/13 of Neeragunda village and got the said sale deed registered in the name of you Accused No. 1 by you Accused No. 3 and 4 impersonating said deceased Ramappa as regards execution and registration of the said sale deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hosadurga and thereby all of you accused are guilty of offences punishable u/s 419 and 420 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

That you Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in furtherance of your common intention of committing the offences of forgery and cheating, on 25/1/94 created a forged sale deed in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 94/10 of Neeragunda village in the name of you Accused No. 1 and got it registered in the Sub-Registrar''s office by you accused No. 5 impersonating CW-5 Kadappa and thus cheated C.W.-5 Kadappa of said 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 94/10 and thus all of you are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

That all of you accused in the course of same transaction, forged certain documents i.e., sale deed in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 94/14 measuring 2 acres; sale deed in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 94/13 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas and sale deed in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 94/10 measuring 2 acres, with intent to commit fraud, and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s 465 r/w 34 IPC and within my cognizance.

That, in the course of same transaction, all of you accused not being a members of Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe, with your common intention, wrongfully occupied lands measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 94/14; 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 94/13 and 2 acres in Sy. No. 94/10 owned by CW-1 Gudadappa father of CW-4 Kalleshappa (i.e., Ramappa) and CW-5 Kadappa respectively who are members of Scheduled Caste and got the said lands allotted to them transferred by executing sale deeds in favour of accused No. 1 and 2 by forged sale deeds, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In all, 13 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and documents as per Exs. P1 to P17 were marked.

The jurisdictional Sub-Registrar examined as PW-1 has deposed about the registration of sale deed (marked as Exs. P1 to P3) in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2. He has admitted, he was not personally aware of the vendors or purchasers stated in Exs. P1 to P3 and he cannot identify them. Therefore, evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to prove the charges framed against accused.

PW-2 Basavarajappa has attested the sale deeds marked as Exs. P2 and P3 PW-2 has not supported the case of prosecution.

PW-3 Vijaya Kumara is a typist who had typewritten the sale deeds as per Exs. P1 to P3. He has deposed that he had typewritten the contents of Exs. P1 to P3 to the dictation given by one Ananthapadmanabha Rao, Vasudeva Rao and Swamy Rao respectively. He has deposed that vendors or purchasers were not present when the contents of the documents were typewritten. Therefore, he does not know either the vendors or purchasers.

PW-4 Ananthapadmanabha Rao is the scribe of Ex. P1. He has deposed that as instructed by accused No. 1 he had dictated the contents of Exs. P1 to P3 to the typist. He was not aware of the executant of Ex. P1 namely Kadappa. The evidence of PW-4 does not indicate that. Kadappa was personated or his signatures were forged by the accused.

PW-5 Kalleshappa is the son of deceased Ramappa. His father is alleged to have sold his property in favour of accused No. 1 under Ex. P1. PW-5 was not present at the time of sale transaction. Subsequently, PW 5 had suspected the contents of documents and he has suspected that his father (executant of the document) was personated at the time of execution and registration of Sale Deed (Ex. P. 1). Therefore, his suspicion cannot take the place of proof.

P.W. 6-Gudadappa had set the law into motion. He had lodged the first information however, he has not supported the case of prosecution.

P.W. 7-Kumara and P.W. 10-Rangappa are said to have attested the mahazar marked as per Ex. P6 relating to spot inspection of lands. Their evidence does not help the prosecution to prove charges against the accused.

P.W. 8-Kadappa is an allottee of land bearing No. 94/10. It is alleged that accused No. 1 had impersonated Kadappa and forged the LTM of Kadappa in Ex. P1 (sale deed).

P.W. 8 has deposed; that he had not sold the land to accused No. 1 however, he has pleaded his ignorance about concoction of sale deed as per Ex. P1 and his personation before the Sub-registrar. He was declared as hostile witness. During cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor, nothing is elicited to prove that accused No. 1 or one amongst accused No. 1 to 7 had personated Kadappa and concocted the sale deed as per Ex. P1.

The evidence of P.W. 9-R.N. Chandrappa who had attested Ex. P1 does not prove charge of personation.

The prosecution has mainly relied on evidence of P.W. 13-Ishwar Yenner, Fingerprint Expert. The evidence of P.W. 13 is not sufficient to prove the left thumb marks of the accused were affixed to Ex. P1 to P3. During investigation, the Investigation Officer had not obtained the specimen left thumb marks of accused No. 1 to 7.

The investigation officer has deposed that he had requested the Sub-registrar to send thumb impressions of accused 1 to 7 found in the register maintained in the office of Sub-registrar.

The Sub-registrar (P.W. 1) has not deposed that he had sent the left thumb marks of accused 1 to 7 to the Handwriting Expert. Similarly, the Handwriting Expert has not deposed that he had received left thumb marks of accused No. 1 to 7 from the office of Sub-registrar. In the absence of this crucial evidence, the evidence of Handwriting Expert is not sufficient to prove that accused No. 1 to 7 had forged left thumb impressions of Executants found in Ex. P1 to Ex. P3.

The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.