Appeal against conviction for counterfeit currency notes. Convictions of some appellants set aside due to weak evidence; others confirmed. Section 313 statement issues deemed academic.
Accused Nos. 3-6, 8, 9 acquitted; Accused 1-2 confirmed; bail cancelled for acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 OF 2011 C/w. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.116 OF 2011
IN CRL.A. 209 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
JHON KENNET MASCARENHAS @ KENNET, S/O. DEVID MASCARENHAS, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NEKKILAMANE, NEKKILEDY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK. ... APPELLANT [BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT [BY SRI. K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 27.01.2011/ 18.02.2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.S.J., D.K., MANGALORE IN S.C. NO.105/2004 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489B AND 489C OF IPC.
2
IN CRL.A. 116 OF 2011:
BETWEEN:
3
[BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MOHAMMAD NIYAZ S., ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPT. BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. K.KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.01.2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN S.C. NO.105/2004 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4, 6, 8 & 9 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489B AND 489C OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order
dated 27.01.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.105/2004 by
the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, whereby accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9
4
are found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC.
The convicted accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 489B of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Further, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 489C of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months.
5
On 31.08.2004, the first informant-P.W.1, the then ASI., District Crime Intelligence Branch [hereinafter referred to as ‘DCIB’ for short], Mangaluru, received a credible information that one person known as Wizard Shantappa [A1] has been dealing in counterfeit currency notes at a place called Daskodi in Balthila village, Bantwal taluk. As such, as per the directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police, on the same day at 3.30 p.m., he proceeded towards Daskodi in his departmental jeep along with his staff and two panchwitnesses. They kept a close watch and noticed two persons viz, accused Nos.1 and 2 coming out of the house of accused No.1-Shantappa. After confirming their identity, they were apprehended and the plastic cover which accused No.1 was holding was searched, wherein two bundles each containing 100 fake currency notes of `100/- denomination were found wrapped in a paper. Similarly, accused No.2 was found in possession of one bundle containing 100 fake currency
6
notes of 100/- denomination, kept in his front pant pocket. Further, accused No.1 was also found in possession of genuine currency notes worth 115/- and a mobile phone and accused No.2 was in possession of genuine currency notes worth `70/-. A detailed mahazar as per Ex.P2 was drawn in the presence of panchas viz, P.Ws.4 and 14 and the said fake currency notes were seized. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint at Bantwal Town Police Station, as per Ex.P1 which was registered by P.W.13-ASI. On the basis of Ex.P1, a case was registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.134/2004 and FIR-Ex.P10 was dispatched to the jurisdictional Court.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested. The further investigation of the case was taken over by P.W.12 viz., C.P.I., Bantwal Circle. On 01.09.2004, he recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 marked as Exs.P7 and 8. The said accused volunteered to show accused No.3. On the same day, accused No.3 was apprehended near Boluwar Bus Stop. On search, he was found in possession of 35 counterfeit currency notes of
7
100/- denomination. The same were seized under a mahazar-Ex.P3 in the presence of panchwitnesses-P.W.5 and C.W.11. Further, he was also found in possession of genuine currency notes of 100/- denomination and a mobile phone, which were also seized.
The voluntary statement of accused No.3 was recorded as per Ex.P.9 and he volunteered to show other 5 accused persons involved in the racket. On the same day, at about 9.00 a.m., accused No.3 led P.W.12, his staff and panchas to Nekkiladi Bus Stop, from where accused Nos.4 to 7 were apprehended.
Accused No.4 was found in possession of 13 counterfeit currency notes of 100/- denomination, accused No.5 was found in possession of 27 counterfeit currency notes of 100/- denomination, accused No.6 was found in possession of 14 counterfeit currency notes of 100/denomination and accused No.7 was found in possession of 11 counterfeit currency notes of 100/- denomination. A mahazar as per Ex.P5 was drawn under which all the counterfeit currency notes were seized in the presence of
8
panchwitnesses namely P.W.5 and C.W.11. Further, accused No.3 volunteered to show accused No.8. On the same day, Investigation Officer along with his staff and panchas apprehended accused No.8 from his house situated in Mulki. From his possession 13 counterfeit currency notes of `100/- denomination, which was kept in the cupboard inside the house was seized under a mahzar Ex.P4, in the presence of panchas, P.W.5 and C.W.11.
On 10.09.2004, at about 5.00 p.m., the Investigation Officer received a credible information regarding the whereabouts of accused No.9, as such, he went to a place called Kalladka in Vittla Junction and apprehended accused No.9, who was in possession of 20 counterfeit currency notes of `100/- denomination. A mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P6 in the presence of panchas namely P.Ws.6 and 11 and the said counterfeit currency notes were seized. The seized notes were sent to FSL for examination and after receipt of FSL Report and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 9.
9
Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 489B and 489C of IPC for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all got examined 14 witnesses and got marked 13 documents as well as 16 material objects.
The trial Court has come to the conclusion that P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 to 9 and 12 in their evidence have clearly deposed that all the currency notes seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 are counterfeit currency notes and the said evidence is not denied by the accused persons in their cross-examination. Further observed that the prosecution has examined P.W.15, the Scientific Officer working in FSL., Bengaluru, who has deposed in his evidence that he has examined the currency notes seized in this case and in his opinion, all the notes are counterfeit currency notes and even the said evidence of P.W.15 is also not denied by the accused persons in their cross-examination. It is held that the prosecution has
10
proved beyond reasonable doubt that M.Os.1, 2, 9, 11 to 14 and 16 which were seized from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 are counterfeit currency notes.
The trial Court referred to a decision reported in [1971]1 My.L.J. 508 and observed that, where the accused was found to be in possession of large number of counterfeit currency notes, it gives rise to a presumption that the possession of such notes was for the purpose of trafficking in currency notes. The trial Court held that in this case, the accused persons were found in possession of large number of counterfeit currency notes and there is no explanation by them as to wherefrom they obtained the currency notes in question. The trial Court further held that, the various circumstances leading to the seizure of the counterfeit currency notes in question, the manner in which the accused persons came in possession of these notes are important circumstances to be considered and such notes bearing same serial numbers in such large numbers clearly suggest that the accused intended to use them as genuine.
11
The impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court has been assailed on several grounds by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. It is contended that the alleged seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of the accused persons itself is doubtful and it is stage managed. The participation of P.W.8, who was working as a Police constable in the DCIB in the entire process of investigation, even after the investigation was taken over by the local police, according to the learned senior counsel, leads to a doubtful circumstance with regard to the seizure of notes from the accused persons. It is contended that the panchwitnesses who have participated in the alleged seizure of counterfeit currency notes have not supported the case of prosecution and therefore, only on the basis of the evidence of Police witnesses, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused persons. It is also contended that the seizure of counterfeit currency notes from accused Nos.3 to 9 is highly doubtful as it is hard to believe that all the said accused were carrying counterfeit currency notes when they were apprehended as alleged by the prosecution. It is
12
also contended that the scribe of the seizure mahazar is not known and the panchwitneses are not from the local area and therefore, a doubt arises in the case of the prosecution that the seizure was conducted in a proper manner.
6. The learned senior counsel has also contended
that mere possession of counterfeit currency notes itself is not sufficient and more over P.W.15, the Scientific Officer has deposed in his evidence that he has taken sufficient time to verify as to whether the notes which were sent for examination are counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, his evidence would show that the notes which are alleged to have been seized from the possession of the accused by a mere look could not be identified as counterfeit currency notes and therefore, it cannot be said that the notes were carried by the accused either with an intention or knowledge that the said notes were counterfeit currency notes.
that the statements of the accused recorded under Section
13
313 of Cr.P.C. is in a cyclostyle form as all the accused were asked the same questions, which were asked to accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the object of recording such a statement has been defeated.
14
the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence.
Karnataka to contend that it is the burden on the prosecution to establish the knowledge or belief of the accused and the prosecution has to show that the accused was an ordinary prudent man who could distinguish between the fake and genuine currency notes.
15
further contends that the evidence of P.W.15-Scientific Officer and his report-Ex.P11 confirms that the notes which were sent for examination are counterfeit currency notes. He therefore contends that there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge and seeks to dismiss the appeal.
following points would arise for consideration:
16
hence, as per the direction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, he proceeded towards Daskodi in Balthila village, Bantwal taluk at about 3.30 p.m. along with his staff after securing two panchwitnesses. According to prosecution, they noticed accused Nos.1 coming from his house along with accused No.2 holding a plastic cover. On search of the plastic cover, they found 2 bundles of fake currency notes of 100/- denomination, which was in possession of accused No.1 and similarly found accused No.2 in possession of 100 fake currency notes of 100 denomination kept in his pant pocket apart from genuine notes. The alleged counterfeit currency notes were seized under a mahazar, Ex.P2. P.Ws.4 and 14 are the panchwitnesses to the said mahazar.
17
completely denied the seizure of notes from accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as the contents of the seizure mahazar. The question remains is whether the evidence of the Police witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3, 8 and 13 are sufficient to substantiate the seizure from accused Nos.1 and 2.
18
hold that the notes which were sent for examination were not counterfeit currency notes.
receiving a credible information that accused No.1 viz, Wizard Shantappa was dealing in counterfeit currency notes, as per the directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police, he along with his staff viz, Giriyappa [C.W.4], P.C.1904-Vishwanath (C.W.10), P.C.2002-Bhaskar [P.W.8], another Police Constable by name Damodar (C.W.9) and other police personnel, proceeded to the spot at about 3.30 p.m. They stopped the
vehicle at Kalladka, from where they secured the panchwitnesses and thereafter proceeded to the spot in a private vehicle. They noticed two persons at about 4.55 p.m. coming out of the house of accused No.1. They enquired them about the counterfeit currency notes and then inspected and checked the plastic bag/cover which was with accused No.1 and found 2 bundles each containing `100/- denomination fake currency notes. Similarly, they found in the pant pocket of accused No.2
19
one bundle containing 100 fake currency notes of `100/denomination apart from genuine notes as well as a mobile phone. He has stated that all those notes contained ‘4’ serial numbers.
20
information was received that accused No.1 viz, Wizard Shantappa was dealing in counterfeit currency notes. Therefore, they went to Daskodi along with other Police officials and panchwitnesses.
Station. He has deposed that on 31.08.2004 the first informant i.e, P.W.1 submitted a report along with a mahazar and complaint and also produced accused Nos.1 and 2 before him. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and the mahazar is marked as Ex.P2. On the basis of Ex.P1complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.134/2004 and transmitted the FIR [Ex.P10] to the jurisdictional Court. He has stated that P.W.1 has also produced the fake currency notes which were seized from accused Nos.1 and 2 as well
21
as genuine notes and a mobile phone. On the same day, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and they were produced before the Court. Thereafter, he handed over the investigation to the CPI-Investigation Officer [P.W.12].
18. The contention of the learned senior counsel
that since both the panchwitnesses to the seizure mahzarEx.P2 have turned hostile and the seizure of fake currency notes alleged to have been made from accused Nos.1 and 2 is not in accordance with law and therefore, only on the basis of the evidence of the official witnesses the accused can not be convicted etc., cannot be accepted. Merely because the panchwitnesses have turned hostile, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve the Police Officials and their evidence with regard to seizure of fake currency notes from accused Nos.1 and 2. It is relevant to see that P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 are attached to the DCIB, Mangaluru and after receiving a credible information and as per the directions of Addl.S.P., they have proceeded to the spot and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and from their possession, the alleged counterfeit currency notes were
22
seized under a mahazar-Ex.P2. Thereafter, the said accused were produced before the Bantwal Police and they were arrested.
100/- denomination, one genuine currency note of 100/- denomination and an LG Reliance mobile phone. He has further stated that the same were seized and sealed and a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3.23
The mobile phone is marked as M.O.10 and the fake currency notes are marked as M.O.11.
volunteered to show another 5 accused and he recorded his voluntary statement under Ex.P9. Thereafter, along with panchas and his staff, he went towards Uppinangadi at about 9.00 a.m. and apprehended accused Nos.4 to 7, who were waiting for a bus at Nekkilady. He has deposed that from accused No.4, 13 counterfeit currency notes of 100/denomination, from accused No.5, 27 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, from accused No.6, 14 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and from accused No.7, 11 counterfeit currency notes of 100/denomination were seized under a mahazar-Ex.P5 in the presence of panchas.
24
denomination under a mahazar-Ex.P4 in the presence of panchas.
at about 5.00 p.m. a credible information was received about the whereabouts of accused No.9, as such, he went to a place called Kalladka and apprehended accused No.9 and seized 20 counterfeit currency notes of `100/denomination under a mahazar Ex.P6 in the presence of panchas. He has further stated that, all the seized articles were sealed and subjected to property form and submitted to the Court and on 06.10.2004, he sent the articles to the FSL.
25
directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mangaluru, they proceeded to the spot and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2. In so far as the seizure of fake currency notes from accused Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.8 and Investigation Officer-P.W.12 apart from the panchas [C.W.11 and P.W.5]. In so far as seizure of alleged fake currency notes from accused No.9 is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.s.7, 9 and 12 apart from panchwitnesses P.Ws.6 and 11.
counsel that P.W.8 is not a staff of P.W.12, but he is attached to the DCIB., Mangaluru and his participation in the subsequent investigation which was done after registration of the case is doubtful and also shows the high interestedness of the prosecution in examining him as a witness in the subsequent seizure of notes from the other accused. It is also contended that it is highly doubtful that accused Nos.3 to 9 were in possession of counterfeit
26
currency notes and they were trying to put the notes in circulation, when they were apprehended.
27
Mulki and seizure was effected under Ex.P4. The evidence available in respect of the seizure of the fake currency notes under Ex.P5 from accused Nos.4 to 7 and Ex.P4 from accused No.8 is that of P.Ws.8 and 12. The prosecution has not examined the panchwitness viz, Ramachandra, who is shown as C.W.11 in the charge-sheet. P.W.5 who is examined has not supported the case of prosecution. The said P.W.5 though admitted his signature in the mahazar viz, Exs.P3 to 5, has categorically denied the contents of the said mehazar. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the said accused were apprehended from the spot shown in the mahazar and also denied that the seizure as shown in the mahazar was done and it was read over to him and his signature was taken. Hence, in the absence of the evidence of panchwitnesses, it is relevant to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 12 carefully, as the prosecution has not examined other Police personnel who are part of the investigation team and who accompanied P.W.12 while apprehending accused Nos.3 to 8.
28
29
notes from the accused, on the basis of jurisdiction, the investigation was transferred to Bantwal Town Police Station. But, again, on 01.09.2004 at about 6.00 a.m., he accompanied the Investigation Officer i.e, P.W.12 and other staff as well as accused Nos.1 and 2 to apprehend accused No.3. He has not stated as to who are the panchwitnesses secured by P.W.12. The presence of panchwitnesses at the time of accused No.3 leading the Police Officials to show accused Nos.4 to 7 has not been spoken by him in the chief- examination.
27. According to the prosecution, seizure of fake
currency notes from accused No.3 and accused Nos.4 to 8 were on 01.09.2004. Exs.P3, 4 as well as 5 are dated 01.09.2004. It is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.8 that he has given statement before the C.P.I.-Investigation Officer that he has gone to Bantwal for investigation on 02.09.2004. It is not forthcoming as to what investigation was carried on 02.09.2004. Accused Nos.3 to 8 were apprehended and fake currency notes, according to prosecution were seized from their possession on
30
01.09.2004 itself. It is also relevant to see that according to the prosecution, 13 counterfeit currency notes were seized from the house of accused No.8, whereas, P.W.8 has stated that accused No.8 produced 14 counterfeit currency notes before the Investigation Officer from a cupboard in his house as per Ex.P4. However, the evidence of P.W.12 does not disclose that the counterfeit currency notes were seized from the house of accused No.4. He has only stated that accused No.3 led the Police and panchas to a place called Yellingapayyakadu in Mulki from where the said accused viz, accused No.8 was apprehended and from his possession 13 counterfeit currency notes were seized under Ex.P4.
when the jeep was stopped and they went to the bus stand to apprehend accused Nos.4 to 7, all the accused tried to run away after seeing the police, whereas P.W.8 has not stated that the accused tried to run away after seeing the Police. On the other hand, he has deposed that accused Nos.1 and 2 showed accused No.3, who was standing near
31
Boluvaru Bus Stand and thereafter, they went and enquired with the said accused and searched his pant pocket and found the fake currency notes and on the same day i.e, on 01.09.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., the said accused led the Police to Nekkilady Police Station and showed the other 4 accused persons and they went near them and enquired with the said accused and searched their pockets and found the fake currency notes. He has nowhere stated that on seeing the Police, the said accused tried to run away. On the otherhand, in the cross-examination, he has stated that there were about 8 Police and on seeing the Police jeep, the accused did not try to escape.
32
seizure of counterfeit currency notes from the possession of accused No.9. Both the panchwitnesses P.Ws6 and 11 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. They have denied having seized any counterfeit currency notes from accused No.9.
about 5.00 p.m., he received a credible information about accused No.9 and therefore, he along with his staff and panchwitnesses went in the Department Vehicle to Vittal Junction and apprehended the said accused and when his pant pocket was searched, found 20 counterfeit currency notes of `100/- denomination. Therefore, he was arrested and the said notes were seized under mahazar-Ex.P6.
31. P.W.7 in his cross-examination has stated that
all the 20 counterfeit currency notes which were seized from accused No.9 and marked as M.O.9 looked like fresh notes. Though P.Ws.7 and 9 have stated that all the 20 counterfeit currency notes are having same serial number, the same is not spoken by the Investigation Officer. P.W.7 has deposed that the Investigation Officer took him along
33
with P.C. 1711 [P.W.9] and panchwitnesses to Vittal cross and then apprehended accused No.9. P.W.9 has not spoken about the Investigation Officer taking the panchwitnesses to the spot. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know as to from where the panchas, who signed Ex.P6 were secured. It is not the case of prosecution that any of the arrested accused gave information about accused No.9. The arrest of accused No.9 and seizure of counterfeit currency notes from his possession appears to be doubtful. The evidence of P.Ws.7, 9 and 12 who are the Police Officials regarding seizure from accused No.9 does not inspire confidence of the Court, in the absence of any independent witnesses. Admittedly, panchwitnesses have turned hostile.
34
intention can be attributed to the accused even if they were in possession of the said notes. He has contended that to base conviction in a case of this nature, there should be conscious possession of the counterfeit notes and the accused should have been intentionally possessing the same and trying to circulate knowingly very well that the notes which were in possession are counterfeit currency notes.
35
seizure of counterfeit currency notes from accused Nos.1 and 2. Even though the panchwitnesses viz, P.Ws.4 and 14 have turned hostile, the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 is sufficient to hold that the said two accused were apprehended on 31.08.2004 and the counterfeit currency notes were seized under a mahazar-Ex.P2 which was drawn between 5.15 and 6.45 p.m. This Court does not find any infirmity in the testimony of the said witnesses and it is well-settled that if the testimony of the police officials is found reliable, conviction can be based without being corroborated by any other independent witnesses. This Court having carefully scrutinized the evidence of the said Police Officials is of the view that their evidence inspire confidence and the same is trustworthy and reliable.
36
Hence, it can not be said that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having no knowledge about the possession of counterfeit currency notes. The material on record is sufficient to hold that accused Nos.1 and 2 have received the counterfeit currency notes having reasons to believe that the same are counterfeit notes.
37
is not sufficient to hold that accused Nos.3 to 6, 8 and 9 are guilty of the offences charged against them. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against them beyond reasonable doubt. In so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, perusal of the statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. do show that all the incriminating evidence appeared against them have been put to them. In so far as other accused are concerned, some irrelevant questions which are incriminating against accused Nos.1 and 2 were put to those accused. Since already this Court has found the evidence against the said accused insufficient and not reliable to convict them, the question as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the said accused by putting such questions in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, need not be gone into, as it is only academic.
38
concerned is liable to be set aside. Points raised are accordingly answered. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Crl.A. No.209/2011 filed by accused No.5 is allowed.
Crl.A. No.116/2011 filed by accused Nos.1 to 4, 6, 8
and 9 is partly allowed.
The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in S.C. No.105/2004 in so far convicting accused Nos.3 to 6, 8 and 9 for offences under section 489B and 489C are concerned is hereby set aside and in so far as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned is hereby confirmed.
Accused Nos.3 to 6, 8 and 9 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
The fine amount if any deposited, shall be refunded
to them.
39
Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before the trial
Court within a period of 6 [six] weeks for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence imposed against them.
Sd/JUDGE
Ksm*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved guilt under Sections 489B and 489C IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the trial court's conviction and sentence require interference?
Whether the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement procedure prejudiced the accused?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sahib Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶71
[1996]11 SCC 685 · Who else cites this
Govindraju alias Govinda Vs. State by Srirampuram Police Station and AnotherReferred¶72
[2012]4 SCC 722 · Who else cites this
Mahendrasingh Khetsing Rao Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶75
[2015]1 KCCR 494
Asraf Ali Vs. State of AssamReferred¶39
[2008]16 SCC 328 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jhon Kenneth Mascarenhas @ Kenneth (Accused No.5)
Shantappa Moolya (Accused No.1)
Ibrahim (Accused No.2)
Ibrahim @ Sadda @ Safari Ibrahim (Accused No.3)
Mohammed Kunhi (Accused No.4)
PM Haneef (Accused No.6)
Mohammad Nawaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court