MULCHAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant was the accused, in the following circumstances:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant takes this court through the record at length and would urge that the findings and conclusions drawn in convicting the accused are erroneous and opposed to oral and documentary evidence. The court below having found that there was no substance in the charges insofar as the offences punishable under Section 489(b) IPC is concerned, the same reasoning ought to have extended insofar as the charges pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 489(c). But however, the court below has chosen to seemingly segregate the evidence in respect of these two offences and therefore, there is no rationale in the reasoning of the court below. The court below has proceeded to rely on the evidence of the raiding party, namely PW-3, who was a Head Constable, PW-8 who was the complainant, who has also acted as the Investigating Officer in the case and PW-10 who was a Police Constable and accepting the depositions of these three witnesses, has convicted the accused. There is no other independent evidence to corroborate the same. As such, the appellant has clearly been falsely implicated and the evidence has been direct, merely to implicate and persecute the appellant. PWs 3 and 10 who are susceptible to suggestion by the complainant who is their superior, have merely parroted the evidence that was tendered and there is hence no substance in the case of the prosecution. In this regard, the learned counsel would take this court through the testimony of the said witnesses and would also seek to point out inconsistencies in the evidence of the said witnesses. In that, whereas one witness has stated that the rexine bag which was seized in which the currency notes were found, was said to be kept on the seat at the bus stand, whereas the other witness has stated that the accused was holding the same. This inconsistency is not explained and therefore, the veracity of the testimony is doubtful. It is also pointed out that PW-8, the Police Inspector, could not also act as the Investigating Officer. In this regard, the law is wellsettled that, any such circumstance would totally vitiate the proceedings.