STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 324 and 335 of 1973 against the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy (A-1) in Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 and against the order in Crl. A. No. 335 of 1973 modifying the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur to Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2) in Sessions Case No. 25/72. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under S. 467 read with S. 114 and S. 193 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to undergo R. I. for three months under S. 467 read with S. 114 and to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo R. I. for one month for the offence under S. 193, I. P. C. He convicted Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2), the appellant in Cri. A. No. 335 of 1973 before the High Court, under S. 467, I. P., C. and sentenced her to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo R. I. for one month. Both the accused filed appeals before the High Court against their convictions and sentences awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) In Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 filed by Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, the learned Judges held that an the facts there could be no doubt that he is guilty under Section 467 read with S. 114 and S. 193, I. P. C. In the appeal filed by Pyatal Bhimakka, Crl. A. No. 335/73, also the learned Judges found that there could be no doubt that she is guilty under S. 467, I. P. C. They confirmed the conviction of Pyatal Bhimakka, observing that she forged the document independently of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, but taking into consideration the fact that Pyatal Bhimakka is an illiterate woman who had been taken to the Office of the Sub-Registrar by Hemareddy alias Vemareddy and asked to put her thumb impression to the document and admit execution of the document, which she did for which Hemareddy alias Vemareddy paid her a sum of Rs. 100/-, the learned Judges felt that the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka by the learned Sessions Judge was harsh and that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one day, which she had already undergone before she was probably released on bail, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer R. I. for a period of one week and thus modified the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka accordingly. The State has filed the appeal by special leave also against this order modifying the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka.

(3.) The learned Judges of the High Court, however, acquitted Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, the appellant in Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 and set aside the sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the complaint in the criminal case which ended in the conviction of both accused in the Sessions Court, was filed by the private individual Narsappa Eliger, P. W. 3 and not by the Civil Court. As stated earlier the Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy by the High Court.