- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100099 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100100 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100099 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. MALLIKARJUN BALAPPA HATTARAKI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: F.D.A, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELGAUM R/O. KARAGUPPI, TQ: HUKKERI DIST: BELGAUM …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. S. KUKANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BELGAUM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEKH MALIPATIL, HCGP) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 351(1) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.04.2015 PASSED BY IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (PCA), BELGAUM, IN SPL. CASE NO.69/2012, FOR GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE, IN SO FAR AS THIS APPELLANT IS CONCERNED AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGE. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100100 OF 2015 BETWEEN: 1. BHARAMAPPA NINGAPPA BICHAGATTI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. BUDIHAL, TALUKA:GOKAK DIST: BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. S. KUKANAGOUDAR,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BELGAUM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ABHISHEKH MALIPATIL HCGP,) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 351(1) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08.04.2015 PASSED BY IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (PCA), BELGAUM, IN SPL. CASE NO.69/2012, FOR GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE, IN SO FAR AS THIS APPELLANT IS CONCERNED AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FROM THE ALLEGED CHARGE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 THESE CRIMINAL APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) In these appeals filed under Section 351(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’), appellants who were examined as PW6 and PW5 in Special Case No.69/2012 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi, have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 344 of Cr.P.C, by which they are sentenced to under imprisonment for one month and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each with default sentence. 2. For the sake of convenience the appellants herein are referred to as PW5 and 6 and the accused in Spl. Case No.69/2012 as accused. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 3. In support of their appeal, the appellants have contended that their conviction and sentence is contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case and as such it is liable to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order are based on conjectures, surmises and unwarranted inferences. The learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellants holding that they have willfully given false evidence while acquitting the accused for paucity of evidence. Absolutely there are no material to show that appellants had given false evidence. The approach of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and as such his findings are vitiated. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is not well reasoned. Viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable and hence the appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the impugned Judgment and order. He would submit that on the basis of the complaint filed by PW5 Bharamappa Bichagatti, a trap was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 laid against Dr. Shivayogi Vijapur and he was successfully trapped while he demanded and received the bribe. PW6 Mallikarjun Hattaraki was the shadow witness in whose presence accused received the tainted notes. After detailed investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A detailed trial was held wherein 12 witnesses are examined at PW1 to 12 and Ex.P1 to 52, MO.1 to 13 are marked. 5. Though PW6 who is the shadow witness, has given evidence supporting prosecution case, on crucial aspects with regard to demand and receipt of the tainted notes, he has resiled from his statement. PW5 who is the complainant has given a total go bye to the complaint and subsequent events leading to the trap of accused. On this technical ground the accused was acquitted. Finding that intentionally PW5 and PW6 have resiled from their statements and thereby committed contempt of court, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 trial Court directed issue of show cause notice to them as to why they shall not be punished for giving false evidence. After they submitted their explanation to the show cause notices, the trial Court has refused to accept their explanation and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. There are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the order in question and sought for dismissal of the appeals. 6. Heard arguments and perused the records. 7. Thus, after acquitting the accused in special case No.59/2012, finding that PW5 who is the complainant and PW6 who is the shadow witness have intentionally given false evidence, the trial Court issued show cause notice to them as to why they should not be punished for the offence u/s 344 of Cr.P.C for giving false evidence. After considering the objections filed by them the trial Court has convicted and sentenced them, which is challenged by them in the present appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 8. Even though PW5 has denied having given complaint against the accused, there is no dispute with regard to the facts leading to the said complaint. On 23.11.2011 at Dasanatti of Gokak taluka, a panchayat was held with regard to dispute between sister of PW5 and her mother in law. During the said panchayat, a quareel took place between PW5 and family members of his sisters husband. His sister’s brother in law assaulted him with a knife on his hand and waist. In this regard he filed a complaint and along with police he was sent to the hospital for treatment. It is also not in dispute that on 23.11.2011 he was treated by the accused who was working at Government hospital, Ankalgi. 9. In the complaint PW5 has alleged that on the next date when he met the accused and enquired about injury certificate, he demanded Rs.300/-. According to the prosecution, when he went to the Lokayuktha police to file complaint, to make sure that there was a demand made by accused and to rule out the possibility of PW5 filing a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 false complaint, the investigating officer gave him a voice recorder with a direction to meet the accused and record their conversation. Only after making sure that there is truth in the allegations made by PW5, the investigation officer has received the complaint, registered the case and proceeded with the matter. 10. However, during the course of his evidence PW5 has come up with a case that on the next day when he went to the hospital one Maruti Shinnagi was with him and took him to the Lokayuktha police station and on the directions of police he wrote the complaint as per Ex.P6. He paid Rs.300/- to Maruti Shinnagi as he brought him to Belagavi. He has also deposed that on the date of trap it was Maruti Shinnagi who went inside the hospital making him to sit out side and he do not know what happened inside. During his cross examination PW5 has denied that accused demanded bribe of Rs.300/- and in fact on the date of trap he paid the tainted notes to the accused and he received it with his right hand and kept below the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 telephone box. He has failed to identify the conversation recorded in the voice recorder. During his cross examination by the prosecution he has denied the suggestions made to this effect. 11. However, PW6 who is the shadow witness has clearly deposed that he and PW7 Mallikarjun Koli were summoned as witnesses and he was treated as shadow witness. During his examination in chief PW6 has supported the entire prosecution case except the part where he saw complainant meeting the accused and handing over the tainted notes. On this aspect he has deposed since there were other patients inside the room he could not know what exactly happened. Again with regard to the PW5 was giving signal to the investigating officer, washing the right hand of accused and it giving pink colour for presence of Phenolphthalein and further proceedings that were held including listening to the conversation recorded in the voice recorder with the complainant and identifying the voice of accused recorded - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 therein. PW6 has also deposed that PW10-Munolli and PW11-Hema Kulkarni who are staff of accused also identified the voice of accused. It is pertinent to note that PW10 and 11 during the course of their evidence have not identified the voice of accused claiming that the voice was not clear. PW6 has also deposed that accused gave explanation with regard to the tainted money found on his table, which he and complainant were found to be not true. This fact was recorded in the trap mahazar. 12. The perusal of testimony of PW6 clearly support the case of the prosecution and falsify the testimony of PW5 denying that he gave complaint regard accused demand bribe and on the date of trap handing over the tainted notes to accused who received it with his right hand kept below the telephone box. However, during his cross examination by the prosecution PW6 has denied that when complainant went inside the chamber of accused no other patients were present and he saw that on the demand by accused, complainant handed over the tainted - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 notes and accused received it with his right hand and kept below the telephone box. 13. The fact that the right hand wash of accused gave positive result for presence of Phenolphthalein also support the prosecution case. In his explanation at Ex.P40 the accused has stated that while he was examining the patients, a person came and said that since morning he is suffering from back pain and he should be treated well and kept Rs.300/- below his phone. However, as noticed earlier PW6 has clearly deposed that he and PW5 denied the version put forth by the accused. It is also pertinent to note that first the right hand of accused was washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned in to pink colour, after which he was asked to produce the tainted notes which he pointed out below the telephone. According to the prosecution case, when PW5 entered the chamber of accused and enquired about the wound certificate, he demanded bribe money and when PW5 produced the tainted notes he received them with right hand and kept - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 below the telephone. If at all accused has not received the tainted notes handed over to him and PW5 directly kept it below the telephone, then the right hand wash of accused would not have given positive result for presence of Phenolphthalein. This itself supports the case of the prosecution that on the demand by the accused PW5 handed over the tainted notes to him and he (accused) received the same with his right hand and kept below the telephone. 14. It is pertinent to note that PW6 is a government servant and if he gives false evidence he is liable for departmental enquiry. For this reason he has supported the entire prosecution case and lied about the crucial aspect of accused demanding and receiving the tainted notes. However, the evidence on record including the sketch at Ex.P3 clearly indicates that when PW5 and 6 went to the chamber of accused, no other patients were present and the distance between the accused and the place were a PW6 were standing is only 2.75 meters i.e. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 around 9 feet and absolutely there was no impediment for him to see as to what transpired between the accused and PW5. Moreover when the Doctor examine a patient, no other patients are allowed inside. From the manner in which PW6 has turned hostile only with reference to the accused demanding and receiving the tainted notes clearly indicate that he has been tutored by the defence counsel to give false evidence only on that crucial aspect so that in the light of false evidence given by PW5 accused would be acquitted. 15. The perusal of testimony of PW5 and 6 clearly indicate that intentionally they have given false evidence and thereby committed the offence under Section 191 of IPC. The trial court after detailed examination of the evidence placed on record has come to a correct conclusion and convicted both appellants i.e. PW5 and 6 and imposed punishment. This court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3549 CRL.A No. 100099 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100100 of 2015 16. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, the following; ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the appellants (PW5 & 6) are hereby dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 in Special Case No.69/2012 passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The trial court shall secure presence of appellants (PW5 & 6) and enforce the punishment imposed against them. (iv) Send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1