Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Basappa Dhasbal vs Mallamma And Ors on 3 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200068 OF 2022
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA S/O BASAPPA DHASBAL
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BOMMANAL VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALLAMMA W/O HANMAPPA DASABAL,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
Digitally signed TQ: LINGASUGUR
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 2. LINGANAGOUDA S/O HIREGOUDA PATIL
COURT OF AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
KARNATAKA
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: LINGASUGUR
3. SHIVUKUMAR
REVENUE INSPECTOR MUDGAL CIRCLE,
R/O BOBBANAL VILLAGE,
TQ: LINGAUSUGUR,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
CRL.A No. 200068 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 378 (4) OF THE
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED BY ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
LINGASUGUR IN C.C.NO.885/2010 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 420, 465, 167 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS / ACCUSED
ACCORDING TO LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is filed by the complainant/victim against
the judgment dated 11.01.2022 passed in
C.C.No.885/2010 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Lingasgur, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the
accused i.e., respondents for the offence punishable under
Sections 420, 465 and 167 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case are that:
The respondent No.1 i.e., accused No.1 is the wife of
complainant's elder brother. The complainant and his
brother Hanumappa were partitioned joint family
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
properties about 40 years back. After the partition,
complainant has purchased land bearing Sy.No.78/1, P1
measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and Sy.No.81/1 P1 measuring
2 acres 20 guntas totally 4 acres situated at Kilarahatti
village of Lingasugur Taluk, from one Padmavathi through
registered sale deed dated 14.03.1973. Since then he was
in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further
case of the complainant that accused No.1 with the
instigation of other accused prepared a false and
fabricated affidavit of the complainant by affixing forged
thumb impression of him and thereby submitted the said
affidavit before the Revenue Officers i.e., accused No.4
and 5. On the strength of the said forged affidavit,
accused Nos.4 and 5 mutated the name of accused No.1 in
the ROR of the above stated land along with name of the
appellant. Hence, the complainant/appellant has filed a
private complaint before the learned Magistrate under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the aforementioned offences on
15.01.2009 and the learned Magistrate, after taking
cognizance of the offences, tried the case by framing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
charges against the accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 420, 465, 166 and 167 r/w 109 of
IPC.
3. To prove the said charges before the learned
Magistrate, the complainant examined in total 4 witnesses
so also got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20.
4. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the
respondents from the charges leveled against them. The
said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the
complainant/victim.
5. I have heard Sri.Shivakumar Kalloor, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant so also
Sri.Shivakumar Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents/accused.
6. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the complainant that the learned Magistrate
has failed to appreciate the evidence placed before him in
a right perspective. Though the complainant has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
categorically stated in his evidence about the forged act
committed by the accused No.1 colluding with the other
accused by forging the thumb impression of the
complainant in an affidavit and thereby changing the
mutation entries of the property which belongs to the
complainant. Further, the learned Magistrate has also
failed to appreciate the evidence deposed by PWs.3 and 4
and the documents placed by the complainant. According
to the learned counsel the offences charged against the
accused clearly attracts the provisions of Sections 167,
420, 463 of IPC. To buttress his arguments, he relied on
the judgment of this Court in the case of Lingashetty Vs.
State reported in 2002 ILR KAR 59 and the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Medichi
Chemicals Vs. Biological Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC
1869.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused would submit that the judgment
passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffers from
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
any perversity or illegality since the learned Magistrate has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and also the
documents placed before learned Magistrate. According to
the learned counsel, at the outset, this appeal by the
complainant/victim is not maintainable before this Court
as per the provisions of Section 372 of Cr.P.C. He would
also contend that even on merits also this appeal is liable
to be dismissed since the complainant miserably failed to
place any such documents or the evidence of experts to
prove the alleged act of forgery by the accused. Further,
the evidence of PW.2 discarded by the learned Magistrate
since he did not turn up for cross-examination and PWs.3
and 4 were also totally turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties, the only point that would arise for my
consideration is:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
(a) Whether the learned Magistrate is justified
in acquitting the respondents for the
offence punishable under Sections 420,
465, and 167 r/w 34 of IPC?
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
so also the documents placed before me.
10. On perusal of the evidence, PW.1 by reiterating
the contents of his private complaint deposed in his
evidence that the accused No.1 colluding with other
accused forged the thumb impression and filed a forged
affidavit before the accused Nos.4 and 5 who are the
Revenue Officers to change the mutation entry in his
name. However, the said private complaint is lodged after
3 years of alleged incident. The delay in lodging the said
private complaint is explained by the complainant that he
was unaware about the act committed by the accused. As
a matter of fact, the documents placed by him and also in
his cross-examination, he has admitted that before lodging
the private complaint, he had already approached the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of mutation so
also filed a civil case before the jurisdictional Court. In
such circumstances, by suppressing the said aspect the
private complaint has been filed after lapse of 3 years.
Further, on perusal of the entire materials on record, the
complainant failed to send the alleged forged affidavit and
the thumb impression for the expert to testify the
genuineness of the said document. In order to attract the
provision under section 465 of IPC, the complainant has to
prove the forgery by placing material evidence of experts
or the documents to compare the forged signature/thumb
impression with the admitted signature of him. There is no
such evidence forthcoming in the case on hand.
11. Further the other witnesses PWs.3 and 4 were
totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
Though PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution, since
he has failed to tender his cross-examination, the learned
Magistrate has discarded his evidence. In such
circumstance, except the evidence of PW.1/complainant,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:758
no other believable or corroborative evidence is
forthcoming on record. In such circumstance, I am of the
view that the complainant has failed to make out any
appropriate ground to interfere in the appeal. Moreover
this being the appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in catena of judgments summarized the law in
respect of the interference of appellate Court in an
acquittal judgment that if the view taken by the trial Court
is reasonable and possible, the appellate Court shall not
interfere in the acquittal judgment. In that view of the
matter, any interference in the impugned judgment does
not call for. Hence, I answer the point raised above in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: PS
