2025:KER:27401 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 77 OF 2010 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2009 IN CC NO.114 OF 2008 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM APPELLANTS/1ST ACCUSED & ADDL.APPELLANT: 1 P.T.KARUPPAN (DIED)* (FORMER EXECUTIVE OFFICER,KARIMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT),S/O.THAMI, VATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KOLANGATHEKARA, CHALUSSERY, THRISSUR. 2* KARTHIAYANI K.K., W/O LATE P.T.KARUPPAN, VATTUKATTIL HOUSE, KOLANGATHEKARA, CHALUSSERY, THRISSUR. *ADDITIONAL APPELLANT/LR OF DECEASED APPELLANT IS PERMITTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2019. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE 2025:KER:27401 2 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.VC 02/95/ DY.S.P., VACB, IDUKKI). SMT REKHA S, SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI A RAJESH, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (VIG) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON 28.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27401 3 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT The appellant was the 1st accused in C.C.No.114 of 2008 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam. The 2nd accused was the Senior Superintendent, Panchayat Deputy Director’s Office, Peerumedu. They were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Sections 409, 465, 471 and 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Special Court convicted the appellant and acquitted the 2nd accused. Challenging the judgment of conviction this appeal has been filed invoking the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code). 2. The appellant expired pending the appeal. His wife came on record and got impleaded as the additional 2nd appellant. 2025:KER:27401 4 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). 4. The prosecution was initiated on the allegations that while the appellant was the Executive Officer (rechristened as Secretary) of Karimannoor Panchayat during 1992-1993 and the 2nd accused was in charge of the Panchayat as a Special Officer, they hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy they misappropriated an amount of Rs.14,943/- under the guise of performing maintenance work of three roads in the Panchayat, namely, Vallakadvu-Adachupara road, Kambipalam-Marampara road and Mannakuzhi-Chilavu road. It is alleged that false measurements were entered in the records and on the basis of such false documents, amounts were misappropriated. 5. At the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 18 and proved Exts.P1 to P18. Ext.C1 was also marked. During examination under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in evidence. Each of them filed separate statement. While the appellant maintained that PW3 carried 2025:KER:27401 5 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 out the works and received the respective amounts, the 2nd accused stated that she inspected the work and gave completion certificates. They thus maintained that they were falsely implicated in the case. 6. The total amount of the works in question was Rs.14,933/-. PW3 was allegedly engaged to carry out the work. According to the prosecution, he did not do any work, instead the appellant obtained necessary documents from him and disbursed the amount. The appellant himself had appropriated the amount in a fraudulent manner. The appellant and 2nd accused allegedly hatched a conspiracy and on the basis of false certification they issued regarding the road works, the amounts were disbursed. 7. The Special Court, relying on the evidence of PWs.2, 14, 15 and 16, held that the works in question were not actually done. PW2 is the de facto complainant. He was the Panchayat member of a different ward. He lodged complaints that without doing any work in the year 1992-93, funds were disbursed. PWs.14, 15 and 16 deposed before the 2025:KER:27401 6 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 court regarding the work of each of the said roads. They deposed that to their memory no such work was done. After about ten years of the work, the investigation took place, and at that point of time they stated that no such work took place in 1992-93. 8. What was involved was only maintenance work of the roads such as excavation, soil deposit on the metals and sectioning of the roads. It is not the version of PWs.14, 15 and 16 that the roads in question were never maintained. According to them, occasionally the roads were being maintained, but in 1992-93 no such work was done. On a thorough reading of their evidence, it is not possible to say that they could remember and say exactly that fact convincingly. 9. PW3 is the person who is said to have carried out the work. He deposed before the court that he submitted quotations based on which he had carried out the works of Vallakadvu-Adachupara road, Kambipalam-Marampara road and Mannakuzhi-Chilavu road. His evidence was not accepted by 2025:KER:27401 7 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 the Special Court, the reason being he was a coolie worker, having no know-how to perform such works. Moreover, he claimed to have undertaken the work resiling from the statement he had given in police. Considering the nature of the work involved, it cannot be said that PW3 was incompetent to perform his work. 10. It may be noted that DW1 is a witness cited by the prosecution, but given up. DW1 practically supported the version of PW3. He went to coolie work under PW3 in relation to the works in question. Although their evidence cannot be accepted as gospel truth, the same certainly creates a doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case especially, when their evidence has the advantage of support from the documents. Ext.P2(a) is tender submitted by PW3. Yet another person submitted the tender is PW12. In preference to PW12, the work was allotted to PW3. Regarding payment also there are documents. When such documentary evidence is available to give support to the evidence of PW3, the same cannot be summarily rejected. 2025:KER:27401 8 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 11. PW10 was examined to state about the works in question. He is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. He submitted Ext.P12 series reports after inspection of the roads. He, however, could not say before the court that there was no such work. He inspected the roads after several years and the work was only earthwork. No one normally would be able to ascertain such a fact after a long delay of more than five years. The evidence and reports of PW10 are not available to the help of the prosecution. 12. What is then available is the oral testimonies of PWs.14, 15 and 16 alone. It has come out that they have close association with PW2. The case of the appellant is that PW2 lodged false complaints since his companion, PW12 was denied the contract. Of course, there is not much evidence in support of that contention. However, when it has come out that PWs.14, 15 and 16 have some sort of interest in the matter and their evidence contains several contradictions, a conviction based on their evidence can be had only if there is independent corroboration. In such a scenario, the evidence of PW3 and DW1, 2025:KER:27401 9 Crl.Appeal No.77 of 2010 together with the documents mentioned above, creates an impression that the work was done. The evidence of PWs.14, 15 and 16, which is unsupported by any independent corroboration, is not enough to establish the contrary. 13. Another reason impelling me to take such a view is that the 2nd accused also certified execution of the works, but the Special Court absolved the 2nd accused saying that she believing the words of the 1st accused/appellant, would have signed the records. That is only an inference not supported by any material. In the light of the aforementioned evidence, when the 2nd accused is found not guilty of the offence, the said rationale applies in the case of the appellant as well. In that view of the matter also, the conviction of the appellant is incorrect. He is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.114 of 2008 on the files of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr