Karnataka High Court
Francis Ignetias D Souza vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. FRANCIS IGNETIAS D'SOUZA
S/O LATE LAZARUS D'SOUZA
AGED AOBUT 61 YEARS
R/O 'LAZ VILLA'
PERNAL POST
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 116.
2. RONALD GOMES
S/O JEROM GOMES
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O KURIPATLA HOUSE
JALAMEL PILAR
UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 116.
3. ROCKY D'SILVA
S/O PAVUL D'SILVA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O PAUL COTTAGE, SALIGRAMA
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 225.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by (BY SRI. S MAHESH FOR
SREEDHARAN BANGALORE
SUSHMA LAKSHMI SRI. DINESH KUMAR RAO, ADVOCATE)
Location: High Court of
Karnataka
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MANIPAL POLICE STATION
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DATED 28.02.2012 AND 14.03.2012 PASSED BY
THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.5277/1999 AND 3658/2000
RESPECTIVELY CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 16.09.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI IN CRL.A.NO.26/2012,
27/2012, 34/2012 (CONVICTED THE PETITIONERS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 419, 467, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC) AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS OF THE CHARGES LEVELED
AGAINST THEM.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 25.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners /
accused Nos.1 to 3, being aggrieved by the judgment of
conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2012 and
14.03.2012 in C.C No.5277/1999 and C.C.No.3658/2000
passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, and
its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.09.2017 in
Crl.A.Nos.26, 27 and 34 of 2012 passed by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, wherein the Courts
below have concurrently held that the petitioners are
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B,
419, 467, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
'IPC'). As against the inadequacy of the sentence passed
by the Trial Court, the complainant had preferred two
appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.38 and 39 of 2012 to
enhance the sentence and the same was also dismissed
by the Appellate Court.
2. The ranks of the parties would be considered henceforth
as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.
Brief facts of the case:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nos.1 to
4 with a dishonest common intention to grab the property
belonging to Francis Cutino bearing Sy.No.101/5
measuring 1 acre 59 cents, situated at Pilaru village,
Udupi Taluk, all the accused persons entered into a
conspiracy on 17.09.1998, at about 3.40 p.m., in such a
way that accused No.2 - Ronald Gomes, at the instance
of accused No.1, by misrepresenting and forged the
signatures and thumb impression of Francis Cutino by
impersonation and got the registered sale deed in favour
of accused No.1. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have signed
the sale deed as witnesses.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
4. Based on the forged sale deed, the accused No.1 got
mutated the property in his name and committed criminal
trespass. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered
before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate
referred the matter for investigation. The respondent -
Police after registering the case, conducted the
investigation and submitted charge sheet.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined, in all, 20 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 20 and
got marked 79 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P79.
Both the Courts have concurrently held that the accused
Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offences stated supra.
6. Heard Sri S Mahesh for Sri Dinesh Kumar Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Nageshwarappa,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent - State.
7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners
that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order
passed by the Appellate Court are contrary to the law and
probabilities of the case.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
8. It is further submitted that the Courts below have
committed serious errors in relying on the evidence of
PWs.1, 3, 7, 16 and 17 who are the interested witnesses
and their testimonies are not consistent and cogent. In
fact, their evidence is full of inconsistencies and
contradictions.
9. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly
reveal that Francis Cutino was not available to prove his
alleged signature found on Ex.P5. Further, the persons
who were acquainted with the said signatures were also
not examined. The Investigating Officer has not
conducted a proper investigation in respect of Ex.P5. The
execution of the old sale deed, to prove that it is genuine
and original, the said document was not traced and
marked.
10. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to
examine the attesting witnesses of Ex.P5. When the
evidence of the material witnesses have not been
properly examined, considering the evidence of other
witnesses and proceeding further in recording the
conviction was not proper and the same is erroneous.
Hence, interference by this Court is necessary in order to
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
secure the ends of justice. Making such submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to allow the
revision petition.
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent - State vehemently justified the
concurrent findings and submitted that the findings of the
Courts below are appropriate and he submitted that it is
an admitted fact that the accused No.1 obtained the
property with the aid of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The
accused No.2 misrepresented and impersonated the said
Francis Cutino even though he died prior to the execution
of the sale deed. Accused Nos.3 and 4 knowingly with an
intention to grab the property, attested Ex.P2 - sale deed
by saying that accused No.2 is the person who is the
owner of the property mentioned in the sale deed.
12. It is further submitted that the disputed signatures and
specimen signatures were sent for chemical analysis and
also for the opinion of the handwriting expert. It has
been proved that the accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed
forgery and also breach of trust. Therefore, the
conviction held by both the Courts is proper and
appropriate. Interference with the said findings may not
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
be necessary. Making such submissions, learned High
Court Government Pleader for the respondent prays to
dismiss the revision petition.
13. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and also perused the
documents available on record, it appears from the
findings of the Courts below that P.W.1 - Jerold Rebello is
the complainant. P.W.2 - Ranjana Rebello is the sister of
P.W.1. Both have spoken about the non-availability of
Francis Cutino. P.W.3 - Joseph D'souza is the person
who had purchased the property from Francis Cutino in
the year 1979 as per Ex.P5. P.W.4 - Nirmala is the
stamp vendor. P.W.5 - Surendra Shenoy is the husband
of P.W.4. He was a Document Writer by profession.
P.W.6 - Mukunda Gowda was working in the office of the
Sub-Registrar as 'D' Group employee who identified
Ex.P2. P.W.7 - Harischandra Hejmady is the Finger Print
Expert who gave his opinion as per Exs.P10 and 11.
According to him, the fingerprint impression found on
Ex.P2 and the specimen thumb impression of accused
No.2 is both one and the same. Similarly, all the
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
witnesses have spoken about their respective roles in the
investigation.
14. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2
impersonated Francis Cutino and executed the sale deed
to accused No.1 by impersonating the said Francis Cutino.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 have affixed their signatures as
witnesses to the said sale deed. Ex.P2 is the sale deed
which is alleged to have been executed by accused No.2
in favour of accused No.1. Ex.P5 is the original sale deed
of which the said Francis Cutino stated to have executed
in favour of a third party.
15. These two sale deeds have been subjected to Handwriting
Expert opinion by taking the specimen signatures and
thumb impression of accused No.2. P.Ws.7 and 17 are
the Handwriting Experts who examined those documents
and submitted their respective reports and opined that
accused No.2 had forged the signatures and thumb
impression of Francis Cutino.
16. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the sale deed which is marked as
Ex.P2 has been executed by the said Francis Cutino and
the said aspect has not been considered by the Courts
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
below is concerned, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 would
indicate that Francis Cutino was not traced since 25
years. The sale deed of the year 1998. Prior to that,
there was one more sale deed stated to have been
executed by said Francis Cutino in favour of third party.
It is an admitted fact that the civil dispute existed
between accused No.1 with the complainant and others
which is numbered as O.S.No.12/1999 filed before
Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Udupi. As per the
findings of the Trial Court, it is emerged that the Civil
Court declared the sale deed which is marked as Ex.P2 as
null and void on the ground that accused No.1 has failed
to prove the sale deed by examining the necessary
witnesses and moreover, the said Francis Cutino had no
right to execute such sale deed even if he was alive.
17. It is needless to say that, the opinion of the Experts alone
cannot be sufficient to hold that the accused had
committed an offence. It is imperative that always
corroboration is necessary even though the evidence of
Expert witnesses are believable. In the present case,
though the Experts - P.Ws.7 and 17 have consistently
opined that accused No.2 had forged the signature and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
CRL.RP No. 1093 of 2017
thumb impression of Francis Cutino, the fact remains that
the said sale deed is not valid as it was nullified by the
Civil Court.
18. On going through the findings of the Courts below in
arriving at a conclusion that Ex.P2 is a forged one and
Ex.P5 is a genuine sale deed, the fact remains that the
civil dispute in respect of the disputed sale deeds is
pending consideration. Such being the fact, arriving at a
conclusion that the accused have committed the offences
as stated supra based on the evidence of Experts, which
appears to be erroneous and not proper. Hence, I am of
the considered opinion that the findings of both the
Courts are required to be set aside.
19. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 28.02.2012 and 14.03.2012 in
C.C No.5277/1999 and C.C.No.3658/2000
passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18291
Udupi, and its confirmation judgment and order
dated 16.09.2017 in Crl.A.Nos.26, 27 and 34 of
2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge,
Udupi District, Udupi, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences
under Sections 120B, 419, 467, 471 r/w 34 of
IPC.
(iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
