STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. E MARUTHI RAO PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Respondents-1 and 2 were Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in C.C.No. 3319 of 1978 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mysore. They were tried for offences punishable under Section 120-B, 465 read with Sec. 120-B I.P.C. for agreeing to commit forgery of the answer papers of 1st Year B Com., Examination of Accused No. 1 and in prosecution of the said conspiracy Accused No. 2 wrote the answer papers of Accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 was also tried for an offence punishable under S. 471 I.P C. for using the forged answers written by Accused No. 2 as his. As both the accused denied the commission of the said offences, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P56 were produced on behelf of the prosecution. The defence of both the accused was one ot total denial. The learned trial Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted both the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State after obtaining leave.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows: - A-1 was the candidate for the 1st year 6 Com, (INR ) Degree Examination conducted by the University of Mysore during April, 1975. He was to take the said examination in Banumaiah's College of Commerce, Mysore, and his Registration number was 1893. The examination was conducted from 21 -4-1975 to 26-4 1975. Exhibits P2 to P6 are the answer scripts pertaining to him in the said examination. One Mr. Shankaranarayana Bhat was the Assistant Examiner for English paper of the said examination. In the process of valuation, he suspected malpractice with respect to the answer script pertaining to A-1 as the handwriting on the first page and the handwriting of the answers were different It also appeared to him that the original leaves of the answer book were detached and a ready made script had been loosely tagged to the cover. He also found that the leaves were longer in size than the cover sheet of the answer book. Hence, he did not value the said answer script and wrote a letter as per Exhibit P1 2 to the Controller of Examinations (P.W.5) who secured theanswer books of the said candidate in other subjects also and was satisfied that some foul play had been committed and referred the said answer scripts Exhibits P2 to P5 to the Malpractices and Lapses Enquiry Committee of the University for enquiry. The said Committee after enquiry held that A-1 had not written the said answers and held him guilty and debarred him for two years from appearing for examination and also recommended that criminal prosecution may be launched against him. The report of the said Committee is ma ked as Exhibit P56. Then P.W. 1 gave a complaint as per Exhibit P1 to the Superintendent of Police, C O.D. Bangalore. On the basis of that, a case was registered in Crime No. 5 of 1976 of Lekshmipuram Police Station, Mysore, and P W. 8 and 11 took up investigation. They collected the said answer scripts Exhibits P2 to P14 of A-1. They obtained exemplar writings and signatures of A-1 as per Exhibits P15 to P42. They also obtained the exemplar writings of A-2 as per Exhibits P43 to P46. Then the disputed answer scripts were sent along with the exemplar writings of A-1 and A-2 and signatures of A-1 to the handwriting expert P W. 10 who gave his report as per Exhibit P47 stating that the writings and signatures on the cover page of the facing sheet of Exhibits P2 to P5 are of A-1. He also opined that the signa'ures purporting to be those of A-1 in the Invigilator's Diaries Exhibit P9 were his He also opined that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 were in the handwriting of A-2. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the said offences against both the accused.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader took us through the evidence on record and urged that the evidence of the handwriting expert P W. 10 clearly proves that the answers in Exhibits P2 to P5 are in the handwriting of A 2, whereas they ought to have been in the handwriting of A 1 and so both of the are guilty of the said offences. On the other hand Mr. B M. Chandrasekharaiah for A 1 and Mr. S. P. Kulkarni for A-2 urged that in view of the differences pointed out by them in the exemplar handwiiting and the disputed writings of A-2, it is not safe to accept the opinion of the handwriting expert and hold that he said answer scripts are written by A-2. For the purpose of comparison, we requested the learned High Court Government Pleader to get the enlarged photographs as they had not been made available to the lower Court by the handwriting expert P W 10. Accordingly, he was good enough to get the photographs of the admitted and disputed writing and make them available to the Court. The learned Advocates for the respondents urged that if the evidence of the handwriting expert is not sufficient to hold that it was A-2 who wrote the answer scripts, then the charges of conspiracy and forgery fail Mr Chandrasekharaiah for A-1 urged that as there is possibility of the answer scripts being inserted after they were received by the invigilators and before they were sent to the examiners by some body at the instance of some body interested in A-1, it is doubtful whether at all A-1 himself used the said answers while giving the answer scripts to the invigilators especially as the invigilators have not stated that the answer scripts were in the same condition when they received them from A 1 on the dates of examination.