Vimalakka Ramappa Koli @Talwar vs The State Of Karnataka

1 2024 INSC 818 [NON-REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3398/2024

VIMALAKKA RAMAPPA KOLI @ TALWAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S.OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 196, 198, and 420 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). The allegation of

the prosecution is that on an application made by the

appellant on 9th September, 2022 to the competent authority

falsely claiming that she belongs to Hindu Holer Caste, which

was a Scheduled Caste, a caste certificate was issued stating

that she belongs to Hindu Holer Caste. Based on the caste

certificate, the appellant applied for a grant of a loan to

Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development

Corporation Limited, Belgaum and the loan was granted. Later Signature Not Verified on, the certificate was scrutinized by the District Caste Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2024.10.24 17:55:05 IST Reason: Verification Committee (the Committee), which concluded that

the appellant did not belong to the Hindu Holer Caste but 2

belonged to the Hindu Talwar Caste. Accordingly, the

Committee invalidated the caste certificate. Based on the

First Information Report registered, a charge sheet was filed

against the appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 196, 198 and 420 of the IPC.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate passed an order of

acquittal. In an appeal against acquittal preferred by the

respondent-State, the Sessions Court, by judgment dated 21st

January, 2015, overturned the order of acquittal and

convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under

Sections 196, 198 and 420 of the IPC. The appellant was

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and

a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default, he was sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The same

sentence was imposed for the offences punishable under

Sections 198 and 420 of the IPC.

3. In a revision petition filed by the appellant, the High

Court confirmed the conviction for the offences punishable

under Sections 198 and 420 of the IPC by the impugned

judgment. However, it acquitted the appellant for the offence

punishable under Section 196 of the IPC. The High Court

reduced the substantive sentence to six months.

SUBMISSIONS

4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant is that while overturning the order of acquittal, 3

there is no finding recorded by the Sessions Court that

ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 196, 198

and 415 read with Section 420 of the IPC were proved by the

prosecution. He submitted that the Sessions Court was

impressed by the fact that the appellant did not challenge

the order cancelling the caste certificate. The learned

counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned

judgments of the Sessions Court and High Court.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

5. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Trial and

Sessions Courts. As far as an appeal against acquittal is

concerned, the law is well settled. The Appellate Court has

to examine whether the findings recorded in the acquittal

judgment are plausible findings that could have been recorded

based on the evidence on record. Only if the Appellate Court

is satisfied that the guilt of the accused is duly proved was

the only plausible finding which could have been recorded

based on the evidence on record, the Appellate Court can

overturn the order of acquittal. In this case, no such

finding has been recorded by the Sessions Court. Only

because it is possible to take another view is no ground to

overturn an order of acquittal.

6. We find that the Sessions Court has not adverted to the

ingredients of the offences for which the appellant was

convicted. Perhaps the Sessions Court felt troubled because 4

there were many cases where the caste certificates issued by

the competent authority were being invalidated, and people

were taking undue advantage of such certificates. Moreover,

the Sessions Court was impressed by the fact that the

appellant did not challenge the Committee’s order

invalidating the caste certificate.

7. As there is no finding recorded that the ingredients of

the offences alleged have been proved, the order of

conviction passed by the Sessions Court cannot be sustained.

Section 198 of the IPC reads thus:

“198. Using as true a certificate known to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.” (Underline supplied)

The Section used the word “corruptly”. Therefore, it is

obvious that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the

offence. Only because the appellant could not establish her

caste claim before the Committee, one cannot conclude that

the appellant corruptly used the caste certificate.

Moreover, corruptly using the certificate is not sufficient.

The accused must have knowledge that the certificate is

false. The allegation that the certificate is false to the

knowledge of the appellant must be proved by the prosecution. 5

8. When the competent authority grants a caste certificate,

it can be invalidated on various grounds. One reason can be

that the person could not substantiate his caste claim. The

second can be that fabricated or forged documents were

produced to support the caste claim. There is no finding that

the caste certificate was invalidated on this ground. It is

not in dispute that the caste certificate was issued by the

authority which was competent to issue it after following due

procedure. Therefore, the caste certificate, per se, cannot

be false or fabricated. If a caste certificate is invalidated

as the applicant could not prove his caste cannot be termed

false only on the ground that it was invalidated. There is no

evidence to show that the caste certificate was false.

Therefore, the ingredients of Section 198 of the IPC were not

made out.

9. The same is the case with cheating, defined by Section

415 of the IPC and punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

Fraudulent or dishonest acts are essential ingredients of

cheating. The Sessions Court has recorded no such finding

regarding any fraudulent or dishonest acts on the part of the

appellant.

10. This is not a case where the Committee had recorded a

categorical finding on facts that the claim made by the

appellant was false.

11. Considering the above discussion, it is evident that the 6

Sessions Court could not have overturned the order of

acquittal. The High Court while confirming the order of the

Sessions Court has not even considered the fact that the

Sessions Court has not recorded a finding that ingredients of

the offences were established. Therefore, the appeal must

succeed. Judgment and order dated 21st January, 2015 passed

by the Learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Belgaum in Criminal Appeal No.2/2014 and judgment and order

dated 11th August, 2015 passed by the High Court in Criminal

Revision Petition No.100045/2015 are hereby set aside, and

the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 26 th August,

2023 in CC No.374/2005 is hereby restored.

12. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 16, 2024.

7

ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No.3398/2024

VIMALAKKA RAMAPPA KOLI @TALWAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

(IA No. 95851/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 95848/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 16-10-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

For Appellant(s) Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv.

Mr. S.K Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv.

M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed Non-

Reportable Judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(KAVITA PAHUJA) (AVGV RAMU) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [Signed order is placed on the file]