- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200018 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRIDHAR S/O RAYAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O SHARAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585101. 2. SATISHKUMAR @ SHIVAKUMAR S/O RANGAPPA NAIK, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O CHOUDESHWARI COLONY, BRAHMPUR, KALABURAGI-585101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ASHOK B. MULAGE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BRAHMPUR P.S., KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 01.02.2019 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.61/2015 AND 65/2015 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.07.2015 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.423/2009 AND ACQUIT THE REVISION PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This revision petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 01.02.2019, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal Nos.61/2025 and 65/2015 and also the judgment and order dated 27.07.2015, passed by the IV Additional Civil - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.423/2009 and acquit the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 419 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 were writing examination on behalf of accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. They had been apprehended by the examination squad. Thereafter, their confessional statements were recorded and handed over them to the college authority. P.W.1 being a complainant and the member of the said college, had lodged a complaint against the petitioners and the respondent/Brahmpur Police Station, Kalaburagi have registered the case in Crime No.102/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigating officer after conducting the investigation has submitted the charge sheet to the jurisdictional Court for the offences stated supra. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined three witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record recorded the conviction against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 419 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, they challenged the said judgment before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Ashok B. Mulage, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gopalkrishna B. Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigating officer has failed to send the writings found on the answer sheets to clarify as to whether accused Nos.1 and 2 have written the answers of said Hindi papers. Unless it is established that the petitioners have written the examination on behalf of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 accused Nos.3 and 4, the conviction cannot be sustained with respect to Section 419 of IPC. 6. It is further submitted that both the Courts have committed error in rendering the conviction for the reason that P.W.3 being a Room Supervisor had already verified the admission tickets/hall tickets and allowed them to sit in the examination hall. Though P.W.3 stated that the squad came to the examination hall and caught hold the accused/petitioners, they have not been examined to substantiate the same. 7. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined to prove the case of the prosecution. In the absence of examination of squad and Investigating Officer, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 419 of IPC. Both the Courts have committed error not only in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, but also applying the principles of law. Hence, the same have to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 be set aside. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State justified the concurrent findings and he further submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the material witnesses to the case have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is consistent with regard to accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were writing examination by impersonating themselves as accused Nos.3 and 4. 9. It is further submitted the accused Nos.1 and 2/petitioners have been apprehended by the squad and the voluntary statements of both the accused have been recorded. Both the accused have made their confession statements. Mere not sending the answer-sheets to the FSL for examination, that may not be a ground to record the acquittal. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Courts below in rendering the conviction, it is appropriate to have a cursory glance upon the evidence of all the witnesses. P.W.1 being the member of the college has lodged a complaint stating that the petitioners were attending the examination on behalf of the accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively and they were writing the papers. He stated to have received an information regarding the impersonation and thereafter, he lodged a complaint against the petitioners. He was questioned that if the petitioners were caught hold by the squad, there was no impediment for them to lodge a complaint. He admitted that they should have also had an opportunity to lodge a complaint. When another question was put to him that was he able to identify the handwriting of the petitioners found on the answer-sheets, he denied that he could not identify the handwritings. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 11. P.W.2 being a pancha has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was supposed to depose about the seizure of hall tickets, answer sheets and also confession statements. 12. P.W.3 was working as a lecturer in the said college and he was working as Supervisor on that day. According to him, the squad stated to have apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 2/petitioners when they were writing the examination by impersonating themselves as accused Nos.3 and 4. 13. Be that it may, on going through the evidence of the witnesses, it can be gathered that, the prosecution has failed to prove that the petitioners were writing the examination and writings found on the alleged seized answer scripts belonged to them and also failed to prove that they had been apprehended by the squad. 14. When the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is not consistent with respect to the presence of accused Nos.1 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 and 2, their evidence ought not to have been considered as it did not inspire the confidence of the Court. 15. Having gone through the evidence of all the witnesses and also documents available on record, it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to prove that squad had apprehended the petitioners. The petitioners were writing the examinations and the Investigating Officer had conducted the investigation of the case. The prosecution failed to conduct examination of the squad, Investigating Officer and taking opinion of the handwriting of the petitioners from the competent authority, conviction of the petitioners, in my considered view, cannot be sustained. The Courts below have committed error. Therefore, the said conviction is liable to be set aside. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the III Additional District and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1746 CRL.RP No. 200018 of 2019 Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Criminal Appeal Nos.61/2015 and 65/2015 and also judgment and order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge & JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.423/2009 are set aside. (iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC. (iv) The bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 CT:PK