order

dated

29.05.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,

Tiptur in Cr.A.No.81/2012 and acquit the petitioner of the

charges leveled against him in the interest of justice.

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing

through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day,

the Court made the following:

Crl.R.P.No.656/2013

2

ORDER

The present petitioner was tried as accused No.1

along

with

accused

No.2

convicted

by

the

Court

of

learned

Prl.Civil

Judge

J.M.F.C.,

at

Chikkanayakanahalli, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

the `trial Court') in C.C.No.266/2001, for the offences

punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 109 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the

`IPC') and was sentenced accordingly.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused

preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.81/2012, before

the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Tiptur,

(hereinafter for brevity referred to as the `Sessions

Judge9s Court'), which after hearing both side, by its

judgment dated 29.05.2013, partly allowed the appeal by

modifying the judgment of conviction and order on

sentence passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.266/2001,

dated 22.05.2012 and acquitting both the accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 109 of IPC,

however, the conviction of both the accused and order on

Crl.R.P.No.656/2013

3

sentence for the offence punishable under Section 419 of

IPC was retained unaltered. Being aggrieved by the same,

the accused No.1 in the trial Court has preferred the

present revision petition.

2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the

trial Court was that, on the date 13.07.2000, between

2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. at Room No.2, D.V.P. High School,

in C.N.Halli Town, within the limits of complainant-Police

Station, the present revision petitioner was writing Science

Part-II paper in SSLC examination personating the true

candidate

by

name

G.T.Chandrashekara,

son

of

G.C.Thopaiah (accused No.2 in the trial Court) and was

caught red-handed and thus, the accused has committed

the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 109

of IPC.

3. The accused appeared in the trial Court and

contested the matter through his counsel. The accused

pleaded not guilty. As such, in order to prove the guilt

against the accused, the prosecution got examined eight

Crl.R.P.No.656/2013

4

witnesses from PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked documents

from Exs.P-1 to P-14. However, neither any witness was

examined nor any documents were got marked on behalf

of the accused.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent are

physically present in the Court.

5. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before this Court, including the trial Court

and Sessions Judge9s Court9s records.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be

henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial

Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsel from both side,

the only point that arise for my consideration in this

revision petition is:

Crl.R.P.No.656/2013

5

Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court

convicting the present petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 and the judgment of the Sessions

Judge9s Court, confirming the said judgment of

conviction and order on sentence warrants any

interference at the hands of this Court?

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 in

his argument submitted that there is contradiction in the

evidence of PW-1 with that of her complaint, who in her

evidence has stated that, she came to know that accused

No.2 was imitating the true candidate, whereas, the true

candidate was accused No.2 and the one who was

impersonating him was accused No.1. Thus, there is

major contradiction between the complaint and the

evidence of PW-1. He further submitted that the same

witness i.e., PW-1 has further stated that the p