STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SUJATHA VENKATESH HALLUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short' Cr.P.C .) is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM (for short 'trial judge') in C.C.No.199/2009 dtd. 1/7/2016, acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 420 , 465 , 468 and 471 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent/accused and her son met with road traffic accident in the year 1999 and she had filed a claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act to claim compensation before the MACT, Koppal. The accused with dishonest intention to claim higher compensation fabricated the hospital receipts/bills for higher amount for the period from 2/6/1999 to 15/6/1999 instead of 6/6/1999 to 5/6/1999 i.e. relating to 'Shiva Krupa' Hospital situated at Hubballi. The accused tampered the receipts issued by the hospital to show that she was under treatment as inpatient from 2/6/1999 to 15/6/1999. The accused also forged the receipts by adding higher amount in the receipts and thereby she filed a claim petition against the KSRTC in MVC No.54/2000. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused has also given a false evidence before the Court and obtained compensation of Rs.1,26,000.00 in MVC case on the basis of false/forged/created and fabricated hospital receipts. For the said act of the accused, a complaint was came to be registered on 23/8/2007 i.e. after lapse of 8 years by the Security and Vigilance Officer, KSRTC, Davanagere Division. Based on the said complaint, the Koppal Town Police registered the FIR against the accused and her husband (as per Ex.P.34). The said complaint was later transferred to the Detective Inspector, Fraud Squad, CID, Bengaluru and was investigated by PW.3-Inspector, Detective Squad, CID, Bengaluru. On completion of the investigation, Koppal Police have filed charge sheet against the accused person before the court for the above mentioned offences.

(3.) After taking cognizance of the case, the learned trial judge framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 420 , 465 , 468 and 471 of IPC which was denied by the accused. In order to prove the said charges, prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.8 and also got marked 37 documents as Ex.P1 to P37. Although, the accused did not chose to examine any witness on her behalf, however, got marked 5 documents as EXs.D1 to D5. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against her. Against the said judgment, the appellant-State has filed this appeal.