AND

ORDER

OF

ACQUITTAL

DATED

AND S.J., MYSURU BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A. AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated

31.08.2015 passed by learned VI Addl. District and Special

Judge, Mysuru in Spl.C.No.73/2010, wherein the learned

Special Judge acquitted the accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 114, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short 'IPC') and also section 3(1)

(iv) and 3(v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The brief case of the prosecution is that PW-14

Mada @ Kunda was having agricultural property bearing

Sy.No.77/6 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas situated in Kiralu

village. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.2 to 4 with an

intention to deceive PW-14, accused No.1 impersonated

himself as Mada and executed sale deed in favour of accused

No.2 in respect of the said land on 05.12.2008 and it was

- 3 -

registered in Sub-Registrar's Office, North Division, Mysuru.

Accused Nos.3 and 4 have put their signatures as attesting

witnesses. Accused Nos.3 and 4 abetted the offences knowing

fully well that PW-14 Mada belongs to scheduled caste and they

have deceived him by forging the sale deed. Hence, a

complaint came to be lodged. After completion of investigation,

police have filed the charge sheet for the offences stated

above. It appears when charge sheet was filed, accused No.1

was not traced and he was absconding. Police have mentioned

in the charge sheet accused No.1 as unknown person and it is

stated that till today, accused No.1 is not traced. It is stated

that separate charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 and

the trial proceeded against accused Nos.2 to 4. The prosecution

examined 24 witnesses a PW1- to PW-24 and got marked 62

documents as Ex-P1 to Ex-P62. After recording 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure(in short Cr.P.C.) statement and after

hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted

the accused. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP for the

appellant-State and Sri. C.M. Jagadeesh, learned counsel for

the respondents/accused.

- 4 -

4. Learned HCGP for the appellant-State argued that the

impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned

Sessions Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. The

learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-

1 and contents of Ex-P1. A complaint came to be filed by the

Police Inspector, CRE Cell. Learned HCGP argued that the

Special Court has failed to take into consideration the evidence

of PWs-5, 6, 7 and 8. PW-2 who is the prime witness, his

evidence is not properly appreciated. The evidence of other

witnesses is not properly appreciated. The Sessions Judge has

failed to draw proper inference. The appreciation of evidence is

not proper and this has resulted in acquittal of the accused.

Hence, she prayed to set-aside the acquittal and convict the

accused.

5. Against this, learned counsel for respondents/accused

Nos.2 to 4 argued that accused No.1 is absconding. The trial

court has rightly appreciated the evidence. The Records of

Rights in respect of the said land stands in the name of Mada @

Kunda(Ex-P44), S/o. Chakraram. Ex-P44 shows it is land

purchased by Chakra Ram, S/o. Kunda, but PW-14 states that

it is an ancestral land. The evidence of the Investigating

- 5 -

Officer shows that he has not at all investigated the matter and

has filed the charge sheet without there being any basis.

Therefore, looking into the evidence on record, it is evident that

the charge sheet is wrongly filed against accused Nos.2 to 4 in

hurriedly manner without proper inquiry. Therefore, learned

counsel supported the judgment of acquittal and prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

I have perused the evidence on record and also the

judgment of acquittal.

6. Admittedly, according to the prosecution, Ex-P1 Sale

deed came in