- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100364 OF 2018 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100342 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100361 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100366 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100372 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100022 OF 2019 IN CRL.A. NO.100364 OF 2018: BETWEEN: SANTOSH @ SHIVAGOUDA DURGUNDIGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O: NO.1934/1, GOKAK ROAD, HUKKARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, SRI. SRINIVAS NADAMANI AND SRI. TANAY BORKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ACT BRANCH, BENGALURU-560032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. CBI CC NO.17/2013 AND SPL.CBI CC 6/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, DHARWAD DATED 22ND NOVEMBER, 2018 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION PASSED IN SPL. CBI CC NO.17/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.03.01 12:14:12 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, DHARWAD DATED 22ND NOVEMBER, 2018 AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT IN SPL. CBI CC 17/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, DHARWAD DATED 22ND NOVEMBER 2018. IN CRL.A. NO.100342 OF 2018: BETWEEN: 1. KEMPANNA SIDDAPPA VADEYAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: P.D.O., R/O: HOSUR, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. 2. BHIMAPPA GIREPPA TOTAGI AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: PVT. WORK, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. 3. LAKKAPPA NINGAPPA BILADE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. 4. SHIVAPPA BARMAPPA BANASE AGE: YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-593107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE; SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE III-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (SPL. JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA & CBI CASES) DHARWAD IN SPL. CBI C.C.NO.17/2013 FOR OFFENCES U/S 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 OF IPC & SEC. 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND FURTHER BE TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANTS OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST THEM. IN CRL.A. NO.100361 OF 2018: BETWEEN: DR. MOHAN PUNDALIK KALEKAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: PATEL BUILDING, CHIKKODI ROAD, NIPPANI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CBI, ACB BRANCH, BENGLAURU, R/BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA AND CBI CASES) AT DHARWAD IN SPL.CBI C.C.NO.17/2013 BY HIS JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 22/11/2018 ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR OFFENCE 120-B, 420, 468, 149 AND 471 OF IPC AND U/SEC.13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN CRL.A. NO.100366 OF 2018: BETWEEN: DR. RAJKUMAR S/O. BHIMRAO KOPP AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O: SHANTI NURSING HOME, GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.L.PATIL AND SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CBI ACB BRANCH BANGALORE, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. CBI CC NO.17/2013 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA AND CBI CASES DHARWAD AND TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22.11.2018 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA AND CBI CASES DHARWAD, IN SPL CBI CC NO.17/2013, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B, 420, 467, 468, 419 AND 471 OF IPC, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120 B, 420, 467, 468, 419 AND 471 OF IPC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS IN CRL.A. NO.100372 OF 2018: BETWEEN: SHRI. BASAPPA S/O. LAXMAN HEREVOLI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: MEKKALAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.R.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: C.B.I., A.C.B.BRANCH, BENGALURU REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO, SETTING ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE OPPONENT IF ANY, THAT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, WHICH IS A SPECIAL CBI C.C. NO.6/2014, DATED 22.11.2018, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.8 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 OF IPC BE SET ASIDE FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE AND AN ORDER FOR REFUND OF FINE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE LOWER COURT BE PASSED AND ANY OTHER ORDERS ENTITLED BY THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED NO.8 BE PASSED. IN CRL.A. NO.100022 OF 2019: BETWEEN: SHRI. RAJU DUNDAPPA UPPAR AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UPPAR GALLI, HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANDESH J.COUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS AND: THE STATE REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BALLARI ROAD, GANGAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT, THE ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 120-B OF IPC, UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.3000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO FURTHR RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 420 OF IPC; RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.3000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT OF 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 467, 468 OF IPC; RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 419 OF IPC; RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.1000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE TO UNDERGO FURTHER RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S. 471 OF IPC; PASSED BY THE HON'BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE FOR LOKAYUKTA AND CBI CASES) DHARWAD IN SPECIAL CBI CC NO.17/2013 DATED 22.11.2018 BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPELLANT ACCUSED NO.4 MAY KINDLY BE ACQUITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORALJUDGMENT These appeals arise from a common judgment in which the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 11 have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution’s case is that accused No.1, an Advocate, accused No.2, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer at MGM Hospital, Nippani, and accused No.3, a Head Constable at Nippani Police Station, along with accused No.4, a private person who allegedly lodged a false complaint in the name of one Siddaroodh, conspired to fabricate documents to fraudulently claim compensation. Accused No.6, a private doctor, assisted in creating medical records, while accused No.3 manipulated police documents to support the false claims. 3. It is alleged that the accused falsely showed that an accident had occurred on 31.05.2005 at Nippani involving a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-37/M-668, owned by PW3 (Ibrahim Isaq Mulla). Accused No.3, in collusion with the other accused, created false medical records in the names of accused Nos.7 to 11, who were falsely shown as grievously injured in the accident. Accused No.5 was responsible for bringing the vehicle to the police station for inspection, and accused No.12, the driver, pleaded guilty in a criminal case to facilitate the fraudulent claim. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 4. Based on these fabricated documents, claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hukkeri, and compensation was fraudulently obtained by suppressing the true facts. 5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after conducting an investigation, submitted a split-up charge sheet concerning accused No.8. To establish the prosecution’s case, the following evidence was presented: i. In Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013, the prosecution examined 70 witnesses (PW1 to PW70) and exhibited 283 documents (Exs.P1 to P283). ii. In Spl. CBI CC No.6/2014, 39 witnesses (PW1 to PW39) were examined, and 122 documents (Exs.P1 to P122) were produced as evidence. 6. The Special Court, upon analyzing the evidence, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted them accordingly. 7. Learned Senior counsel Sri Sandesh S. Chouta, Sri Harsh Desai, representing accused No.1, along with Sri Jagadish Patil, counsel for accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10, Sri K.L. Patil, counsel for accused No.6, and Sri A.R. Angadi, counsel for accused No.8, made the following arguments: 7.1. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused conspired to create false documents to fabricate an accident and fraudulently claim compensation. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 7.2. The medical records produced by the prosecution (Exs.P.102 to P.107) clearly demonstrate that accused Nos.7 to 11 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.05.2005. 7.3. No corroborative material was placed on record to disprove the authenticity of the medical records (Exs.P.102 to P.107) or to establish that they were fabricated. 7.4. PW4 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) categorically stated that the vehicle involved in the alleged accident had sustained damage on its left-hand side. 7.5. The prosecution failed to establish that FIR registered by accused No.4 was fabricated and that the investigation and charge sheet were based on falsified documents. 7.6. PW3, the owner of the subject vehicle, did not support the prosecution’s case but admitted that an accident had indeed occurred on the said date, based on the information provided to him. 7.7. The prosecution also failed to establish that accused No.8 had impersonated PW39 to fraudulently claim compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI countered the arguments by stating: 8.1. PW6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) testified that the alleged accident could not have occurred as claimed, as the vehicle had damage only on the left-hand side bumper, which was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS inconsistent with the injuries purportedly sustained by accused Nos.7 to 11. 8.2. PWs.15 to 24 (Revenue Authorities) conducted inspections and submitted reports confirming that accused Nos.7 to 11 were not residents of the addresses mentioned in the claim petitions, raising doubts about their identities. 8.3. Accused No.1 introduced accused Nos.7 to 11 to fraudulent bank accounts to facilitate the claim and receive compensation illegally. 8.4. PWs.27, 28, 32, and 33 (Doctors and Witnesses) categorically stated that accused No.7 had sustained an injury in 1995, long before the alleged accident. 8.5. PW34 (Doctor) testified that accused No.8 had sustained injuries from a fall from a tree on 05.08.2005, which was after the alleged accident. 8.6. PW43 (Doctor) and PW44 confirmed that accused Nos.9 to 11 had sustained injuries prior to the date of the alleged accident. 8.7. PWs.40 and 41, the alleged signatories to the spot mahazar, denied signing any such document, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence presented by the accused. 8.8. Exs.P.47 and P.48 (Police Personnel) testified that the mahazar was prepared under the instructions of accused No.4 and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS accused No.3 (Police Constable), reinforcing the claim that the entire case was fabricated. 8.9. PW39’s evidence clearly established that accused No.8 had impersonated him to fraudulently claim compensation. 9. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the trial court records, the primary issue for determination in these appeals is: “Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the accused conspired to create fraudulent documents to falsely claim that accused Nos.7 to 11 sustained accidental injuries and, based on such fabricated records, filed claim petitions and obtained compensation fraudulently?” 10. The case involves allegations of a well-orchestrated conspiracy to fabricate an accident, create false medical and police records, and fraudulently claim compensation from MACT. The Trial court, after thorough examination of oral and documentary evidence, found that the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s evidence, including inconsistencies in the medical records, testimonies of independent witnesses, and forensic findings, played a crucial role in proving the fraudulent scheme. 10.1. P.W.1 (Office Superintendent, Regional Transport Office, Chikkodi) - P.W.1 deposed that the CBI Officer requested authenticated copies of the registration file of Omni Bus bearing Registration No. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS KA-37-M-668, which was allegedly involved in the accident. He further stated that he duly provided the authenticated copies of the relevant documents to the CBI Officer at Belgaum Police IB. 10.2. P.W.2 (Transport Office Official) - P.W.2 identified the handwriting and signature of C.W.6 (Sudharshan Jadhav) and confirmed that C.W.6 was the authorized signatory of the Inspection of Motor Vehicles (IMV) Report. The said report recorded that the subject vehicle sustained damage to its left-side bumper. 10.3. P.W.3 (Ibrahim, Owner of the Subject Vehicle) - P.W.3, the registered owner of the Omni Bus KA-37-M-668, stated that accused No.12 was employed as the driver of the said vehicle. He further testified that he had applied for the release of the vehicle, which had sustained damages, including broken front glass, indicators, headlights, and deformation of the front portion. He admitted that the vehicle was involved in an accident, thereby not supporting the prosecution’s case. 10.4. P.W.4 (Deputy Manager, Vigilance Department, Oriental Insurance Company, Bangalore) - P.W.4 testified that he provided all relevant insurance-related documents as per the CBI Officer’s summons. 10.5. P.W.6 (Inspector of Motor Vehicles, RTO, Chikkodi) - P.W.6, the author of Ex.P.11 (IMV Report), stated that after conducting an inspection, he certified that damage was observed - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS on the front bumper on the left side of the subject vehicle. During cross-examination, no substantial material was elicited to discredit his statement. 10.6. P.Ws.7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 14 (Officers of Oriental Insurance Company) - These witnesses, all officials from Oriental Insurance Company, did not dispute the involvement of the subject vehicle in the alleged accident on 31.05.2005. They further admitted that the insurance policy covering the said vehicle was valid, and they processed and disbursed compensation amounts to the claimants, i.e., accused Nos. 7 to 11. 10.7. P.W.15 (Retired Tahsildar) - P.W.15 deposed that he had issued reports marked as Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25, based on an enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector, Hukkeri, and Yamakanmaradi. He stated that the accused Nos. 7 to 11 were not residents of the address provided in the claim petition. 10.8. P.W.16 (Deputy Tahsildar & Former Sheristedar, Taluka Office, Hukkeri 2008–2012) - P.W.16 stated that, in the course of his official duties, he had sought information from the Food Inspector and Election Clerk regarding the residency of accused Nos. 7 to 11. In response, he was informed that the accused did not possess ration cards or election ID cards, thereby indicating that they were not residents of the stated address. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.9. P.W.17 (Village Accountant, Hukkeri Town) - P.W.17 testified that he had conducted a panchnama and submitted a report confirming that accused Nos. 9 to 11 were not residents of Hukkeri town. 10.10. P.W.18 (First Division Clerk, Office of the Deputy Commissioner) - P.W.18 corroborates the testimony of P.W.17, affirming that accused Nos. 9, 10, and 11 were not residents of Hukkeri Town. 10.11. P.W.19 (Food Inspector, Hukkeri Rural, 2006– 2009) - P.W.19 stated that he had verified only the register for the year 2009 and had not examined earlier records to determine whether accused Nos. 7 to 11 were residents of the address mentioned in the claim petition. 10.12. P.W.20 (Village Accountant, Yamakanamaradi, 2007–2011) - P.W.20. deposed that he had verified the village records and found that the names of accused No.7 and P.W.36 were not registered in the village list, thereby suggesting that they were not residents of Yamakanamaradi. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.13. P.W.21 (Postman, Yamakanamaradi Village, Employed for 16 Years) - P.W.21 testified that he was assigned to deliver a speed post to accused No.7. However, the post was returned with the endorsement “Insufficient Address and Not Known”, indicating that the accused was not residing at the stated address. 10.14. P.W.22 (Postman, Hukkeri) - P.W.22 corroborated P.W.21’s testimony, stating that a speed post addressed to accused No.7 was returned with the endorsement “No Such Person”, further confirming that the accused was not a resident of the given address. 10.15. P.W.25 (Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Hukkeri) - P.W.25 testified that accused No.7 had visited the bank to open a savings account and was introduced by accused No.1 on 23.09.2006. 10.16. P.W.26 (Retired Bank Manager, Union Bank of India, Hukkeri) - P.W.26 stated that he had produced relevant bank documents pertaining to accused No.7 and submitted them to the CBI Officer during the course of the investigation. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.17. P.W.27 (Medical Officer, ART Centre, Gokak) - P.W.27 testified that he had produced multiple medical records, including: - (i) IPD Register for the period 14.06.1995 to 18.11.1995, - (ii) Original Consultation Register of Dr. A.J. Jadhav (1995–1996), and - (iii) Original Discharge Register from 01.08.1995 to 19.02.1996. - Based on these records, he stated that accused No.7 had been admitted to the hospital on 10.11.1995 for treatment following an injury to his right hand, which had to be amputated above the wrist. - During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not verified any additional documents and was merely providing information based on the registers marked in evidence. He also stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding the circumstances under which accused No.7 sustained the injuries. 10.18. P.W.28 (Principal, SSN Arts and Commerce College) - P.W.28 testified that he had furnished documents related to accused No.7’s admission in the college in the year 2001. He also confirmed that scholarship was granted to accused No.7 as a handicapped student and stated that he could identify the relevant documents. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.19. P.W.29 (Retired Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Belgaum) - P.W.29 stated that accused No.1 had introduced accused Nos. 9, 10, 11, and 39 for the purpose of opening savings bank accounts. 10.20. P.W.30 (Younger Brother of Accused No.7) - P.W.30 testified that accused No.7 had sustained an injury to his right hand while working with a jowar harvesting machine, which resulted in amputation of his forearm. 10.21. P.W.31 (Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu) - P.W.31, who had previously worked as the Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Hukkeri (2009–2011), testified that accused No.1 stood as a surety for loans availed by P.W.39, accused No.9, and accused No.10. 10.22. P.W.32 (Medical Practitioner, Hukkeri) - P.W.32 deposed that in July 2001, accused No.7 had visited him with a health card. Upon being shown Ex.P.44, he confirmed that accused No.7’s forearm had been amputated in an accident involving a harvesting machine. 10.23. P.W.33 (Orthopedic Surgeon, NIMRA Hospital, Gokak) - P.W.33, after reviewing the OPD case history from 21.09.2005 to 28.09.2005, confirmed that he had examined accused No.7 and issued a disability certificate stating that he had suffered 79% - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS disability in his upper limb. He supported the prosecution’s case, but notably, the prosecution did not cross-examine him to further substantiate their case. 10.24 P.W.34 (Government Doctor, CPR Hospital, Kolhapur, 2009–2010) - P.W.34 testified that accused No.8 was admitted to the hospital on 05.08.2005, following a fall one day prior to admission. 10.26. P.W.35 (SDC, Community Health Centre, Nippani, Belgaum District) - P.W.35 identified case sheets that were opened by accused No.2 for the benefit of accused Nos. 7 to 11. He also produced the original in-patient register and case sheets of accused Nos. 7 to 11, which were related to the alleged accident on 31.05.2005. During cross-examination, he was examined to prove the handwriting and signature of accused No.2, who had issued the in-patient register and original case sheets. 10.27. P.W.36 (Landowner, Hukkeri) - P.W.36 stated that accused No.9 had been working on his land and had sustained injuries from a fall from a mango tree in the year 1999. During cross-examination, he reaffirmed that the incident had occurred 9 to 10 years prior to his testimony, i.e., in 1999. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.28. P.W.37 (Father of Accused No.10) - P.W.37 turned hostile during the trial. His cross-examination did not yield any information supporting the prosecution’s case. 10.29. P.W.38 (Witness to Alleged Impersonation) - P.W.38 identified P.W.39, who was allegedly impersonated by accused No.8. 10.30. P.W.39 (Siddharudh Gadade, s/o Bapu) - P.W.39 stated that he had not sustained any accidental injuries on 31.05.2005 but admitted that he had suffered injuries 7 to 8 years earlier in a quarrel. 10.31 P.W.40 & P.W.41 (Witnesses to Spot Mahazar of the Alleged Accident on 31.05.2005) - Both witnesses testified that they had not seen the spot mahazar seized by the Investigating Officer (accused No.3). 10.32. P.W.42 (Wife of Accused No.6) - P.W.42 partly supported the prosecution’s case and was examined to identify the signature of accused No.6, a doctor who had issued disability certificates to accused Nos. 7 to 11. However, she turned hostile and nothing significant emerged from her cross-examination. She admitted that accused No.6 had signed the disability certificates but denied that the certificates were fabricated. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 10.33. P.W.43 (Orthopedic Doctor, Diploma Holder in Orthopedics) - P.W.43 testified regarding accused No.9, stating that he was 40 years old at the time of admission on 26.05.1999. He confirmed that at the time of admission, accused No.9 complained of back pain and inability to move his limbs. X-rays revealed a compression fracture of the D-11 and D-12 vertebrae. P.W.43’s testimony was used to establish that accused No.9 had sustained similar injuries prior to the alleged accident in 2005. - P.W.43 further testified that accused No.11 was admitted to the hospital on 07.05.2002, having sustained an injury to his right wrist in a prior vehicle accident. The prosecution examined him to prove that accused No.11 had pre-existing injuries similar to those claimed in the present case. - Additionally, P.W.43 provided details regarding P.W.39, stating that he had received treatment for injuries on 15.03.2005. In his cross-examination, the doctor stated that during his 30 years of service, he had treated patients who had previously undergone operations and later sustained similar injuries on the same part of the body. 10.34. P.W.44 (Orthopedic Doctor) - P.W.44 testified regarding accused No.8, stating that he had sustained injuries in 2005 and was admitted to the hospital on 06.08.2005 with a history of fall. He was subsequently discharged on 22.08.2005. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS - During cross-examination, P.W.44 admitted that: - He was not the casualty doctor on duty at the time of accused No. 8’s admission as an in-patient. - He did not report the case to the nearest police station, as accused No.8 had arrived at the hospital with a self-reported history of a fall. 10.35. P.W.45 (Practicing Advocate) - P.W.45 is a practicing advocate who had represented Oriental Insurance Company in the claim petition filed by accused Nos. 7 to 11. 10.36. P.W.46 (Staff Nurse, MGM Hospital, Nippani) - P.W.46 testified that accused Nos. 7 to 11 were admitted to the hospital based on a chit issued by accused No.2. The chit instructed the hospital to admit the patients, and as per accused No.2’s instructions, she facilitated their admission and recorded their details in the IPD book on 31.05.2005. During cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit or disbelieve her testimony. 10.37. P.W.50 (Civil Engineer, Sugar Factory, Sankeshwar) - P.W.50 identified a certificate issued in relation to accused No.7, which confirmed that while working as a supervisor at the sugar - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS factory, he had sustained injuries to his right wrist, leading to the amputation of his right hand. 10.38. P.W.51 (Advocate) - P.W.51, an advocate, testified that he recorded the statement of accused No.12 under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). 10.39. P.W.55 (Judicial Officer) - P.W.55, a Judicial Officer, stated that he recorded the statement of P.W.39 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.39 had filed a claim petition seeking just and proper compensation. 10.40. P.W.59 (Doctor) - P.W.59, a medical practitioner, testified that accused No.8 had undergone treatment for a fracture of the shaft of the right ulna and radius. 10.41. P.W.62 (Handwriting Expert) - P.W.62, a handwriting expert, furnished a report stating that Ex.P.230 was authored by a specific scribe. 10.42. P.W.68 (Investigating Officer) - P.W.68, the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and submitted the final report. In paragraph 36 of his cross- examination, he made several admissions: - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (i) He had no documentary evidence to establish that accused No.4 was working as a clerk for accused No.1. (ii) He admitted that P.W.50 had stated in his deposition that accused No.4 was an agent of the insurance company. (iii) His conclusion that accused No.4 was a clerk of accused No.1 was based solely on oral information obtained during the investigation. (iv) He did not procure any court records to establish that accused No.4 was the scribe of the claim petition. (v) He did not find any documents proving that accused No.4 acted as a scribe for accused No.1. (vi) He did not make any effort to collect call records of accused No.1 from the relevant period in which the claim was filed. (vii) He conceded that one Mayappagouda had obtained certain documents and submitted them for filing the claim petition. (viii) He confirmed that the claim petition and bank accounts were the only documents serving as incriminating evidence against the accused persons. (ix) He acknowledged that the claim petition was filed based on documents obtained from the Court. (x) He admitted that during the search of accused No.1’s residence, no incriminating evidence was found. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (xi) He admitted that there is no material to establish that the claimants were known to the Accused No.1 before filing the claim petition. 11. In view of the above, the following conclusions may be drawn: 11.1. P.W.51 and P.W.55’s testimonies confirm that statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded, which may hold evidentiary value. 11.2. P.W.59’s medical testimony establishes that accused No.8 had suffered a fracture, potentially relevant to the compensation claim. 11.3. P.W.68’s admissions significantly undermines the prosecution’s case against accused No.4, as he acknowledged a lack of documentary evidence, absence of call record verification, and failure to recover any incriminating material during searches. 11.4. The prosecution’s reliance solely on the claim petition and bank records as incriminating evidence raises doubts about the strength of the case. 11.5 The medical records, Ex.P 102 to 107, indicate that accused Nos. 7 to 11 were admitted to the hospital for treatment of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 31.05.2005 . The details of their injuries are as follows: - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS i. Ex.P 103 describes the injuries of accused No. 7, which include a crush injury to the forearm, extending from the mid-arm to the wrist, with traumatic amputation at the middle third (m/3) level and fresh bleeding. ii. Ex.P 104 details the injuries of accused No. 8, including a fractured clavicle, swelling and tenderness at the middle third (m/3), and a 2x1/2 cm red abrasion on the elbow. iii. Ex.P 105 records the injuries of accused No. 9, which include pain and tenderness over the lumbar spine, muscle power loss in the lower limbs, and the need for bowel and bladder catheterization. iv. Ex.P 106 describes the injuries of accused No. 10, including swelling, tenderness, and a clinically fractured left leg (middle third), with an above-knee P.O.P. slab applied. v. Ex.P 107 details the injuries of accused No. 11, which include a laceration wound on the right wrist extending to the mid- forearm. 12. The prosecution has further produced the following additional reports: 12.1. Ex.P 264 contains details of all the injuries suffered by the accused and their hospital admission times. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 12.2. Ex.P 265 is an extract from the OT Register, which includes: i. A-7: Below-elbow amputation. ii. A-10: Open reduction and internal fixation with a nail. iii. A-8 (alleged impersonation): Retrograde nailing for both limbs. 13. The prosecution, despite producing above medical records, has not provided any evidence to prove that they were fabricated. On the contrary, P.W.46 testified that accused Nos. 7 to 11 were admitted to the hospital based on a chit issued by accused No. 2. The chit instructed the hospital to admit the patients, and, as per accused No. 2’s instructions, P.W.46 facilitated their admission and recorded their details in the IPD register on 31.05.2005. 14. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to establish that the FIR registered against accused No. 12 for causing the accident was fabricated, as it did not examine the relevant police personnel. Additionally, it has failed to substantiate the following allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 6: 14.1. That the accused No. 1 had allegedly filed petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hukkeri, and fraudulently obtained an award. 14.2. That the accused No. 2, a doctor at MGM Hospital, allegedly issued fabricated medical certificates, wound certificates, - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS discharge summaries, and inpatient records for accused Nos. 7 to 11. 14.3. The accused No. 3, a police head constable, had conducted a spot mahazar and recorded Section 161 CrPC statements in a fraudulent manner. 14.4. That the accused No. 4, who was a clerk of accused No. 1, allegedly fabricated medical records (medical certificate, wound certificate, and discharge summary) in collusion with accused No. 2, to obtain a disability certificate from accused No. 6. Accused No. 5: Allegedly presented a Tempo Trax vehicle to the police as involved in the accident, despite knowing that no such accident had occurred. 14.5. That the accused No. 6, an orthopedic doctor, allegedly issued disability certificates for accused Nos. 7 to 11, despite knowing they were false. 15. It is settled law that ‘conspiracy’ requires that all involved share a mutual intent to commit a crime. Here, the prosecution claimed the accused forged documents to falsely show that an accident occurred, leading to claiming illegal compensation. 16. However, the trial court acquitted accused No.12—the driver—because there was no evidence that he had joined the plan. Without the driver agreeing to the plan, there is no basis for a conspiracy. The driver admitted to causing injuries through negligence, not as part of a conspiracy. Without his involvement, - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS the allegation that all the accused purportedly colluded to fake an accident falls apart. The prosecution failed to show that all parties intended to defraud by fabricating the accident. Thus, in the absence of evidence in support of a collective criminal intent, the conspiracy charge and the related fraudulent compensation claim do not hold legal merit. - In relation to allegations against accused No.1 following testimonies failed to substantiate the same: PW-68, Dy Sp CBI in cross examination admits that there is no material to show that the accused persons were earlier known to accused no.1. No call records were collected with regard to accused no.1 in conversation with other accused. ● PW-25 who is a bank manager of SBI deposed that accused No.1 had introduced accused no.7 for opening of bank account at Hukkeri. ● PW-27 who is retired bank manager of SBI stated that based on a cheque issued by Civil Judge, Hukkeri, accused No.7 had withdrawn Rs. 4,26,986/- lakhs and kept Rs.2 Lakhs as fixed deposit. - In relation to allegations against Accused no.2:following testimonies failed to substantiate the same; ● PW-46, a nurse at MGM Hospital admits that she had received a slip from accused No.2 to admit patients i.e accused No.7, 9,10,11 and she produced IPD entries in Ex.P 102 and identifies the person who had received treatment in the hospital. - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS ● PW-35, SDC officer identifies the signature of accused No.2 and OTT register at Ex.P-111 from May 2005 - Dec 2007 and Ex.P 103- Ex.P107. He admits that after signature of accused No.2, he had inserted entries for MLC cases starting from 04.06.2005. ● Ex.P 102 dated 31.5.2005 provides that all four accused persons are admitted to hospital in between 4.55 pm to 5.15 pm. - In relation to allegations against Accused no.3 following testimonies failed to substantiate the same: ● PW-47, Head constable at Nippani P.S deposed that he received a call on 31.05.2005 and he knows accused no.2 and accused no.3. However, he had no personal knowledge about the conversation between them. ● PW-48, police writer states that he had written the documents based on dictation of PW-47 and admits the spot mahazar and documents to be valid. he further stated that in case of any error in case diaries, the copy of case diary is to be forwarded to Dy.SP. but, in this case no such quarries were received by Dy.SP. - In relation to accused no.4 following testimonies failed to substantiate the same; ● PW-45, an advocate deposed that accused no.4 is not a clerk of accused No.1 and accused No.4 is private investigator in oriental insurance. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS ● There is no material to substantiate that accused No.4 is a clerk of accused No.1 and had assisted accused No.1 in filing of MVC claim. ● It is also alleged that accused No.4 had filed a complaint before the police, he impersonated himself as Siddharoodh and affixed thumb signature. However, there is no endorsement produced by police that the said complaint was lodged by accused No.4, and there is corroborative evidence to that effect. 17. In conclusion, the prosecution has failed to establish the following: 17.1. The Accused entered into a conspiracy to orchestrate an accident which did not occur. 17.2. The Accused Nos. 7 to 11 did not sustain injuries in the road traffic accident on 31.05.2005. 17.3 The medical records, the basis on which the claim petitions were filed, were fabricated. 17.4. The filing of the complaint, the subsequent investigation, and the charge-sheeting of Accused No. 12 for rash and negligent driving resulting in injuries to Accused Nos. 7 to 11 were fabricated. 18. The award passed by the motor accident claims Tribunal awarding compensation to accused No.7-12 has been confirmed by this Court in Misc. First Appeals by reducing the - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS quantum of compensation. However, there is no finding that the claim petitions were filed by fabricating documents. 19. The Trial Court wrongly appreciating the evidence on record has erred in passing the impugned judgement , which is not sustainable in law. The prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, warranting a conviction. In the light of the foregoing analysis, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Dharwad , insofar it relates to appellant/accused No.1, is hereby set-aside, in Crl.A No.100364/2018. iii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Dharwad , insofar it relates to appellants/accused No.7,9,10, 11, is hereby set- aside, in Crl.A No.100342/2018. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS iv) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court and Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Dharwad , insofar it relates to appellants/accused No.2, is hereby set- aside, in Crl.A No.100361/2018. v) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for Lokayukta and CBI Cases), Dharwad, insofar it relates to appellants/accused No.6, is hereby set-aside, in Crl.A No.100366/2018. vi) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.6/2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for Lokayukta and CBI Cases), Dharwad , insofar it relates to appellants/accused No.8, is hereby set-aside, in Crl.A No.100372/2018. vii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2018 passed in Spl. CBI CC No.6/2014 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, (Special Judge for Lokayukta and - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1674 CRL.A No. 100364 of 2018 AND CONNECTED MATTERS CBI Cases), Dharwad , insofar it relates to appellants/accused No.4, is hereby set-aside, in Crl.A No.100022/2019 viii) The appellants-accused are acquitted of the offence alleged against them. ix) Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR,AC,HR Ct:vh List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42