- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100377 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, BRUCEPET POLICE STATION, BALLARI, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP) AND: 1. U. MALLIKAJRJUNA S/O SANNA BASANNA AGE: 48 YEARS R/O: KAMMARACHEDU VILLAGE TQ: BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.L.VANTI FOR V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING A) TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN CRL.A.NO.15/2015 DATED 25.08.2018, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 471, 420 OF IPC; AND B) TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN CRL.A.NO.15/2015 DATED 25.08.2018, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 471, 420 OF IPC AND C) CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BELLARY, IN C.C.NO.1215/2012, DATED 14.05.2015. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) In this appeal filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, State has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused, by reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-5 Nagaraj and accused Mallikarjuna are brothers. PW-5 Nagaraj claimed that during 1995, their father gave partition in the properties wherein Sy.No.43/B measuring 7 acres 90 cents, Sy.No.38/B measuring 3 acre 76 cents (for short 'property in dispute') and Sy.No.38/C measuring 2 acres 75 cents were allotted to his share. However, during 1978 their grandmother Veeramma has executed a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 gift deed in respect of property in dispute. Though the revenue records were in the name of accused, possession was with PW-5 Nagaraj. In this regard suit in O.S.No.275/2007 was pending before the Civil Court. Since the property in dispute was Inam land, there was prohibition for selling the same and Form No.2 was required to be secured to alienate the same. 4. It is alleged that in order to overcome this, accused concocted Form No.2 by forging the signature of the Tahsildar and produced the same before the Sub- registrar and executed sale deed in favour of third person. He had also not paid Rs.19/-, which was required to be paid at the office of the Sub-registrar for securing Form No.2. This fact came to light when PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali and PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh, the then Tahsildars appeared in the civil suit and gave evidence that Form No.2 relied upon by the accused in the civil suit is not issued by them and the signature therein is forged. After - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 giving evidence before the Civil Court, PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali has filed complaint. 5. Based on the said complaint, the concerned police have registered the case and taken up investigation. The investigating officer has collected standard handwritings and sample handwritings of PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali, PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh, the then Tahsildars and also of the accused. He has also collected the forged Form No.2 from the Civil Court and sent the same along with the standard handwriting and sample handwritings to forensic lab for examination by the handwriting expert. After comparison, the handwriting expert has given report stating that the disputed signature in Form No.2 is not that of either PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali or PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh, the then Tahsildars. Based on the same, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 464, 468, 469, 471 and 420 IPC. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 6. After service of summons, accused appeared before the trial Court and contested the case by pleading not guilty. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, State has relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to 54. 7. During the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused has denied the incriminating evidence led by the prosecution. 8. Accused has not led any defence evidence. During the cross-examination of prosecution witness, accused has got marked Ex.D1 and 2. 9. The trial Court found accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed in the order. 10. Accused challenged his conviction and sentence before the Session Court in Crl.A.No.15/2015. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 11. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused. 12. Aggrieved by the same, the State has come up with this appeal contending that it is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and as such not sustainable in the eye of law. The testimonies of PW-7, the complainant i.e. PW-5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 13 is consistent and corroborated to each other. Through their evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has on proper consideration and appreciation of their evidence rightly convicted the accused. However, the Session Court has discarded the truthful version of these witnesses by giving undue importance to minor contradictions. 12.1. There is sufficient evidence to establish that the original of Ex.P4 (Form No.2) is a got up document created by the accused to make wrongful gain, by forging the signature of PW-9 and produced the same before the PW-6 Sub-registrar for the purpose of executing sale deed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 In fact, PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali and PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh have deposed that the signature in Ex.P4 does not belong to them. The prosecution has proved that the signature in Ex.P4 is forged through the testimony of PW- 11 Syed Askar Imam, Forensic Expert and his report at Ex.P14. The Session Court has wrongly acquitted the accused by relying upon Ex.D1 and also on the ground that the gift deed and record of rights stood in the name of accused. The findings given by the Sessions Court is contrary to the evidence on record and as such perverse. While setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, the Sessions Court has failed to give proper and acceptable reasons. 12.2. The prosecution case is supported by the testimony of PW-5 Nagaraj Basanna, the brother of accused who has deposed regarding the civil dispute pending between him and the accused and PW-6 A.M. Panchakshari, Sub-registrar, who has clearly deposed that it is the accused who produced the original of Ex.P4 (Form - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 No.2) for the purpose of executing the sale deed. In fact, the evidence of PW-8 Accounts Officer of District Treasury clearly established that the accused has failed to pay the amount payable to the Government for securing Form No.2. Being the beneficiary of the document in question, it is for the accused to establish that Form No.2 was obtained in accordance with the Rules and bear the signature of the Tahsildar, to rule out presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12.3. As per the Panchanama at Ex.P1, the Investigating Officer has collected original Form No.2 from the Civil Court and sent it to the handwriting expert. Thereafter, the original Form No.2 was returned to the Civil Court in O.S.No.275/2007. In fact, no suggestion is made by the defence to PW-11 Syed Askar Imam, Forensic Expert that the document examined by him was a Xerox copy. There is no justification for the Sessions Court to hold that a photocopy of Form No.2 was examined by the handwriting expert. This reasoning is perverse, being - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 contrary to the evidence on record. Looking from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of the Session Court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is required to be restored and hence the appeal. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the accused has supported the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard arguments and perused the record. 15. The undisputed facts are that accused and PW-5 Nagaraj are real brothers. A partition has taken place in their family. While PW-5 Nagaraj claimed that in the said partition property in dispute has fallen to his share, even though his grandmother has executed a gift deed in favour of accused. It is the contention of accused that the property in dispute was purchased in the name of his grandmother and she has executed a gift deed in his - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 favour. During the pendency of the suit accused has sold the same in favour of third person. Since the said property was Inam land, in order to alienate the same Form No.2 was required. In fact for the purpose of sale, accused has produced Form No.2 dated 19.06.2006 before the Sub- registrar and on the basis of it the Sub-registrar has registered the sale deed. 16. In O.S.No.275/2007, the plaintiff i.e, PW-5 Nagaraj summoned the Tahsildars i.e, PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali and PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh to ascertain whether Form No.2 was issued by them. Both of them after examining the said document have deposed that it is not issued by them and the signature therein is not their signature. Realising that Form No.2 relied upon by the accused in the civil suit is a forged and concocted document PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali choose to file complaint, which culminated in the charge sheet. 17. In the light of these admitted facts, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution has proved - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While examining whether the prosecution has discharged its burden, it is also necessary to keep in mind that in the light of the fact that accused is relying upon Form No.2 and on the basis of it, he has executed the sale deed in respect of the property in dispute, after the prosecution discharges its initial burden, it is for the accused to establish that he has secured Form No.2 from the office of the Tahsildar by following the requisite procedure. 17.1. PW-5 Nagaraj is the brother of accused. The fact of concoction of Form No.2 by forging the signatures of the Tahsildars came to light in the suit filed by him. He has deposed regarding the civil dispute between him and the accused and that he came to know that the Form No.2 is concocted after both Tahasildars came and gave evidence in the civil suit. 18. It is pertinent to note that Form No.2 on the basis of which the accused has executed the sale deed, True copy of which is marked as Ex.P4, was produced - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 before the Sub-registrar at the time of executing the sale deed. PW-6 A.M.Panchakshari was the Sub-registrar, Ballari in between 06.11.2008 to 11.06.2012. He has deposed that about 2-3 years back when the accused came to execute sale deed in respect of the property in dispute, he directed the accused to produce Form No.2. Later, accused produced Form No.2 and on verification, he found signature of two Thahsildars and accordingly he registered the sale deed. He has also given evidence on this aspect before the Civil Court i.e. in O.S.No.275/2007 as PW-6. 19. In O.S.No.275/2007 when the Sub-registrar gave evidence stating that on the basis of Form No.2, he registered the sale deed, the plaintiff summoned both Tahsildars, whose alleged signatures were forthcoming in the document and examined them. Both of them have given evidence that the document in question is not issued by them and signatures therein are not their signatures. They have also given evidence in the criminal case. The - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 evidence of PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali reveal that he worked in the Tahsildar office, Ballari from 15.02.2010 to 03.02.2013. Since the Form No.2 at Ex.P4 is dated 19.06.2006, it is quite evident that PW-7 would not have issued the same. 20. The evidence of PW-9 M.Lakshman Singh reveal that he worked as the Tahsildar, Ballari from 09.02.2004 to 07.05.2007. Therefore, necessarily the original of Ex.P4 is required to bear the signature of PW-9 M. Lakshman Singh, if it is a genuine document. During cross-examination of PW.7 Shashidhar Bagali, it is elicited that accused had given requisition dated 30.06.2010 with a request to certify Form No.2 obtained by him. It is marked as Ex.D2. However, PW-7 has stated that since he doubted the genuineness of the said document i.e. Form No.2, he did not certify it. However, for having received the said requisition, he has affixed his chota signature and it is marked as Ex.D2(a). - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 21. Though PW.7 has admitted that the seal available in Ex.P4 is that of the Tahsildar, Ballari, he has specifically stated that the seal of the Tahsildar might have been misused for concocting original of Ex.P4. Merely Because PW-7 has received requisition given by the accused to certify Form No.2 secured by him would not make it a genuine document, unless he establish that it bear the signature of PW-9, who was the Tahsildar at the relevant point of time when accused secured Form No.2. Since during the period when accused has allegedly secured Ex.P4, PW-9 Lakshman Singh served as Tahsildar, Ballari, his evidence is relevant. 22. During the course of his evidence, PW-9 has clearly deposed that he has not issued Form No.2 as per Ex.P4 and the signature therein is not his signature. He has also stated that the writing in Ex.P4 are not of any of the staff of the office of the Tahsildar, Ballari. He has also deposed that in respect of this, he has also given evidence in the civil suit. After coming to know that the document is - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 concocted, PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali has given complaint. In this regard, he has also given statement to the concerned police. 23. During his cross-examination, PW.9 has specifically stated that he has verified the register pertaining to Form No.2 and came to know that Form No.2 as per Ex.P4 is not issued by their office. In fact, accused has elicited through the cross-examination of PW-9 that before issuing Form No.2 removing the prohibition from alienation, Form No.1(a) is required to be submitted in the register pertaining to Inam lands, the name of the person seeking Form No.2 would be entered and the copies of Form No.1A and Form No.2 would be maintained in the said register. If really accused had given requisition for obtaining Form No.2 and in this connection Form No.1A was issued and after issuing Form No.2, copies of both Form No.1A and Form No.2 were maintained in the concerned register, it would have been very convenient for the accused to secure certified copies of those two - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 documents to show that Form No.2 issued as per Ex.P4 is a genuine document. 24. Except making certain suggestions with regard to the procedure required to be followed, the accused has not taken any steps to establish that Form No.2, secured by him is a genuine document. After both PW-7 and PW-9 denied of having issued Form No.2 and that it contained their signature, the Investigating Officer has chosen to send this document along with the standard signatures and question signatures of PW-7, PW-9 and accused for comparison to the Forensic Laboratory. He has secured the original of Ex.P4 from the Civil Court. PW-10 E. Srinivas, PC-199 has collected the original of Ex.P4 and produced it before the Investigating Officer and it was seized through mahazar Ex.P1. 25. PW-10 has deposed to this effect. During his cross-examination, he has stated that Dodda Basavaraj (PW-1) and V.Padma (PW-12) were present when the mahazar was drawn. He has denied the suggestion that he - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 has not collected any document and produced before the Investigating Officer and he is giving false evidence. Ex.P1 is the mahazar through which the original of Ex.P4 was seized. In Ex.P1, it is clearly stated that in the document which was produced from the Court, the signatures in green colour said to be that of the Tahsildars are marked as D1 and D2. PW-1 Dodda Basavaraj and PW-12 V. Padma have also deposed with regard to seizure of original of Ex.P4. 26. After securing the original of Ex.P4, in order to ascertain whether the signature in the original of Ex.P4 is that of PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali or PW-9 M.Lakshman Singh, the Investigating Officer has secured their standard Signatures and also request signatures. He has also collected the Specimen signature and request writing samples of accused. PW-1 and PW-12 are also witnesses to the said proceedings and mahazars. The evidence of PW-1 Dodda Basavaraj, PW-12 Padma, PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali, PW-9 Lakshman Singh and PW-13 B. Niranjan the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 Investigating Officer prove the said fact. After collecting the standard signatures and request signatures of PW-7, PW-9 and the accused, the Investigating Officer has sent them along with original of Ex.P4 to Forensic Laboratory for examination and comparison. 27. PW-11 Syed Askar Imam is the handwriting expert who has conducted scientific investigation and given report at Ex.P44 to the effect that the disputed signature marked as D1 is not that of PW-9 Lakshman Singh. The standard signatures marked as per S4 to 6, R7 to 12, which relates to PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali and the question signature marked as per D2 are not compatible with one another as they are executed in different form of execution. He has also opined that it is not possible to fix up the authorship of question signature marked as D1 as it is produced by means of imitation forgery. 28. On behalf of accused, PW-11 has been cross- examined at length, suggesting that there would be variation in the signatures due to long gap, increasing age, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 etc. Though PW-11 has admitted that there may be natural variations due to age and other circumstances, he has deposed that the basic nature of the signature would remain the same. It is pertinent to note that a suggestion is made to PW-7 Shashidhar Bagali that the signature in Ex.P4 belong to him and the seal is also that of the office of Tahsildar. Of course, he has denied the said suggestion. Having regard to the fact that PW-7 has worked as Tahsildar, Ballari from 15.02.2010 to 03.02.2013, and the original of Ex.P4 is dated 19.06.2006, it cannot be accepted that the original of Ex.P4 is issued by PW-7. Of course, PW-9 has worked as Tahsildar, Ballari from 09.02.2004 to 07.05.2007, but he has denied the suggestion that original of Ex.P4 is issued by him. The report of the handwriting expert also negate the contention of the accused that the original of Ex.P4 was issued by PW-9 Lakshman Singh. 29. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW-8 R Shivanna, Chief Accountant, Ballari District - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 Treasury to prove that before securing the original of the Ex.P4, no deposit of Rs.19/- is made to the Government through Challan No.2B. He has deposed that in this regard, U Nagaraj i.e PW-5 gave application to furnish copy of the said challan if any. Since no payment was made, they have issued endorsement to that effect. He has been cross-examined at length as to the procedure for payment of money through challan. He has denied that even though payment of Rs.19/- was made, intentionally he is falsely deposing that no such payment is made. 30. When the prosecution has established that the original of Ex.P4 is not issued by PW-9 Lakshman Singh and it does not bear his signature and before securing the same accused has not deposited Rs.19/- which he was required to deposit for obtaining the same, burden is on the accused to establish that he gave application in Form No.1A requesting for issue of Form No.2 and that he has also deposited Rs.19/- with the Treasury through challan. If really, the accused has secured original of Ex.P4, he - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 could have obtained certified copies of Form No.1A submitted by him and Form No.2 secured by him, the copies of which would be maintained in the file. It is pertinent to note that when a person makes payment to the Bank through challan, one of the challan copy will be given to him. Accused could have produced the copy available with him. The very fact that accused has not chosen to produce these documents goes to show that the original of Ex.P4 is a concocted document and the requisite procedure is not followed. 31. The trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record has come to a correct conclusion that the original of Ex.P4 is a concocted document by forging the signature of PW-9 Lakshman Singh. The evidence of PW-6 A.M. Panchakshari, Sub- registrar prove the fact that it is the accused who produced the original of Ex. P4 and on the basis of it sold the land in dispute. This fact came to light in O.S.No.275/2007 wherein accused disclosed the fact of - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 sale made by him of the property in dispute. When PW-7 and PW-9 were summoned before the Civil Court, they gave evidence regarding the forgery and on the basis of complaint filed by PW-7, the law was set into motion culminating in filing of the charge sheet. 32. Through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the trial Court are consistent with the evidence placed on record. The Session Court unnecessarily indulged into discussion that the grandmother of accused was the owner of the property in dispute and she gifted the same to the accused. The issue before the criminal court was not whether accused had title to the property in dispute, but in order to sell the property in dispute whether he has concocted From No.2 by forging the signature of PW.9 M.Lakshman Singh, which the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is for the Civil Court to decide the rights of the parties in the property in dispute. While - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 setting aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, the Sessions Court has failed to justify the same. On the other hand, the conclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court is contrary to the evidence placed on record and it is perverse. Consequently, it is liable to be set aside and the judgment and order of the trial Court is to be restored and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the appellant-State is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2018 in Crl.A.No.15/2015 on the file Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari is set aside and the judgment and order dated 14.05.2015 in C.C.No.1215/2012 on the file of I-Addl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari is confirmed. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3823 CRL.A No. 100377 of 2018 (iii) The Trial Court is directed to secure the presence of accused and execute the order of sentence. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records as well as the Sessions Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 2 CT:NI