Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5025
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA, J
R SHIVAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 4 of 2012
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction, and conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Conviction of accused for conspiracy, forgery, and cheating in loan disbursement - Accused convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fines imposed - Appeals filed against conviction and sentence - Court found insufficient evidence to maintain conviction for certain charges, particularly under the Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction for conspiracy and related offences upheld, but imprisonment set aside with enhanced fines imposed. (Paras 2, 72)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 26, 72)
(C) Criminal Conspiracy - Evidence of conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence; direct evidence is rarely available. (Paras 58, 66)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for conspiring to defraud UCO Bank by submitting forged documents to secure loans, resulting in a financial loss to the bank. The total amount involved was Rs.7,51,70,124/-. The trial court convicted the appellants based on extensive documentary evidence and witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the appellants were guilty of conspiracy and related offences, the evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence was sufficient to maintain the convictions and whether the appellants were entitled to acquittal on certain charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, while sufficient evidence existed for conspiracy and related offences.
Result: Appeals allowed in part; convictions maintained for certain offences, but imprisonment set aside with enhanced fines imposed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vasanth Kumar, counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.04/2012, Sri M. Vinaya Keerthi, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.26/2012, Sri R. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.125/2012 and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The appellants are the accused in Special C.C.No.134/2007 who have suffered an order of conviction before the learned Single Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru (CCH-34) by judgment dated 09.12.2011 and sentenced as under:
“The accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 19 are convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/s 120B of IPC .
2) The accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 19 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year for the offence punishable U/s 468 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.
3) The accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 19 convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year are for the offence punishable U/s 471 IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.
4) The accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 19 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year for the offence punishable U/s 477A IPC and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of fine, they shall under go simple imprisonment for 6 months.
5) For the offence punishable U/s 420, the accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 to 15, 17 to 19 are convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for one year and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo SI for 6 months.
6) For the offence punishable U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall undergo SI for 1 year and shall also pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.
It is further ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.”
3. Rank of the appellants before the Trial Court and before this Court and offences for which appellants have been convicted and sentenced is tabulated herein for ready reference:
| Name of the accused | Rank before Spl. Court. | Spl. C.C. No. | Criminal Appeal No. before this Court | Conviction for the offence p/u/s | Sentence passed |
| Sri R. Shivakumar | Accused No.2 | 134/2007 | 04/2012 | 120B, | SI for one year |
| 468, 471, 477A, 420, 13(2) R/W 13(1)(c)(d) | SI for one year and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each o the offences and in default of fine, they shall undergo SI for 6 months | ||||
| Sri Nagesh V Gokarn | Accused No.1 | 134/2007 | 26/2012 | 120B | SI for one year |
| 468, 471, 477A, 420, 13(2) R/W 13(1)(c)(d) | SI for one year and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- |
| each of the offences and in default of fine, they shall undergo SI for 6 months | |||||
| Sri Muralidhar Behal | Accused No.4 | 134/2007 | 125/2012 | 120B 468, 471, 477A, 420, | SI for one year SI for one year and shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each of the offences and in default of fine, they shall undergo SI for 6 months |
| Sri Lakshmi Narayan Behal | Accused No.5 | ||||
| Sri Srikanth Kulkarni | Accused No.6 | ||||
| Sri G.B.Dhanya Kumar | Accused No.7 | ||||
| Sri Rakesh Behal | Accused No.9 | ||||
| Sri Radha Rani Behal | Accused No.10 | ||||
| Smt.Shallu Behal | Accused No.11 | ||||
| Smt.Sapna Behal | Accused No.12 | ||||
| Sri K.B.Girish | Accused No.13 | ||||
| Sri Satish .S | Accused No.14 | ||||
| Sri K.J.Sathish | Accused No.15 | ||||
| Sri Sangappa.B.P | Acused No.17 | ||||
| Sri Khajapeer | Accused No.18 | ||||
| Sri Mohd. Shariff | Accused No.19 |
4. Most essential facts which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
5. As per the prosecution papers, accused No.1 -Nagesh V.Gokarna, Branch Manager of UCO Bank, between the period 14.08.1998 to 14.05.2002, accused No.2 – R. Shivakumar was the successor of the Branch of UCO Bank, Indiranagar on and from 06.05.2002 to 2005, accused No.3- S.H.Siddappa was the Assistant Manager of UCO Bank, Davanagere and were all public servants.
6. As per prosecution case, accused Nos.1 to 3 said
