Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
Santosh @ Shivagouda Durgundigouda Patil – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation Act Branch – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100364 OF 2018 (C) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100342 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100361 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100366 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100372 OF 2018 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100022 OF 2019
For the Appellant :SRI. HARSH DESAI, SRI. SRINIVAS NADAMANI AND SRI. TANAY BORKAR, ADVOCATES
For the Respondent: SRI. NEELENDRA A.GUNDE, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and fraudulent claims beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Conviction of accused for conspiracy and fraudulently claiming compensation based on fabricated documents - Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy or fabrication of documents beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 10, 17)
(B) Conspiracy - Definition and requirements - Mutual intent to commit a crime is essential for establishing conspiracy; absence of collective criminal intent undermines prosecution's case. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The accused, including an advocate, a medical officer, and a police constable, were convicted for conspiring to fabricate documents to fraudulently claim compensation for a non-existent accident. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies and medical records, which were contested by the defense.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented; however, the appellate court found the prosecution's case lacking in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully proved that the accused conspired to create fraudulent documents to falsely claim compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate a mutual intent to commit fraud, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.
ORALJUDGMENT
These appeals arise from a common judgment in which the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 11 have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120B , 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
2. The prosecution’s case is that accused No.1, an Advocate, accused No.2, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer at MGM Hospital, Nippani, and accused No.3, a Head Constable at Nippani Police Station, along with accused No.4, a private person who allegedly lodged a false complaint in the name of one Siddaroodh, conspired to fabricate documents to fraudulently claim compensation. Accused No.6, a private doctor, assisted in creating medical records, while accused No.3 manipulated police documents to support the false claims.
3. It is alleged that the accused falsely showed that an accident had occurred on 31.05.2005 at Nippani involving a vehicle bearing registration No. KA-37/M-668, owned by PW3 (Ibrahim Isaq Mulla). Accused No.3, in collusion with the other accused, created false medical records in the names of accused Nos.7 to 11, who were falsely shown as grievously injured in the accident. Accused No.5 was responsible for bringing the vehicle to the police station for inspection, and accused No.12, the driver, pleaded guilty in a criminal case to facilitate the fraudulent claim.
4. Based on these fabricated documents, claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Hukkeri, and compensation was fraudulently obtained by suppressing the true facts.
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), after conducting an investigation, submitted a split-up charge sheet concerning accused No.8. To establish the prosecution’s case, the following evidence was presented:
i. In Spl. CBI CC No.17/2013, the prosecution examined 70 witnesses (PW1 to PW70) and exhibited 283 documents (Exs.P1 to P283).
ii. In Spl. CBI CC No.6/2014, 39 witnesses (PW1 to PW39) were examined, and 122 documents (Exs.P1 to P122) were produced as evidence.
6. The Special Court, upon analyzing the evidence, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted them accordingly.
7. Learned Senior counsel Sri Sandesh S. Chouta, Sri Harsh Desai, representing accused No.1, along with Sri Jagadish Patil, counsel for accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10, Sri K.L. Patil, counsel for accused No.6, and Sri A.R. Angadi, counsel for accused No.8, made the following arguments:
7.1. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused conspired to create false documents to fabricate an accident and fraudulently claim compensation.
7.2. The medical records produced by the prosecution (Exs.P.102 to P.107) clearly demonstrate that accused Nos.7 to 11 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 31.05.2005.
7.3. No corroborative material was placed on record to disprove the authenticity of the medical records (Exs.P.102 to P.107) or to establish that they were fabricated.
7.4. PW4 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) categorically stated that the vehicle involved in the alleged accident had sustained damage on its left-hand side.
7.5. The prosecution failed to establish that FIR registered by accused No.4 was fabricated and that the investigation and charge sheet were based on falsified documents.
7.6. PW3, the owner of the subject vehicle, did not support the prosecution’s case but admitted that an accident had indeed occurred on the said date, based on the information provided to him.
7.7. The prosecution also failed to establish that accused No.8 had impersonated PW39 to fraudulently claim compensation.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI countered the arguments by stating:
8.1. PW6 (Motor Vehicle Inspector) testified that the alleged accident could not have occurred as claimed, as the vehicle had damage only on the left-hand side bumper, which was inconsistent with the injuries purportedly sustained by accu
