HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.287 OF 2007 Dated 15-7-2014 Between:
Boddu Venkata Ramana.
And:
Petitioner.
State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.287 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 23-2-2007 in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam whereunder judgment dated 24-
6-2004 in C.C.No.612 of 2000 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows: Inspector of Police, Harbour Law and Order Circle-VI, Visakhapatnam filed charge sheet against revision petitioner alleging that accused is native of Santhapalem village of Kottavalasa Mandal of Vizianagaram District in the year 1991, he obtained a false certificate changing his caste as ‘Scheduled Tribe (Bagatha)’ in stead of ‘Koppula Velama’ and by changing his name as ‘Pasupula Venkateswararao’ son of Linganna of Chodavaram, secured a job in O.R.Section, C.M.R., Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. On receipt of reliable information, B.S.Sivakumar Raju, Vigilance Officer of Visaphanatma Port Trust verified the genuineness of certificate of the accused through District Collector, Vizianagaram and during verification, it revealed that the accused has cheated the Port Trust Authorities by impersonating himself as ‘Pasupula Venkateswararao by changing his name and caste. On the report of Vigilance Officer, Port Trust, Visakhapatnam, police registered crime No.26 of 2000 and investigation revealed that the accused obtained false educational certificates and got them attested through Godi Subba Rao, Assistant Audit Officer, A.G. Office and with the help of such document secured job by impersonating as ‘Pasupula Venkateswarao’, as such, he committed offences under Sections 419 and 471 I.P.C. On these allegations, trial court examined fourteen witnesses and marked fifteen documents on behalf of prosecution and no one is examined and no document is marked on behalf of the accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found him guilty for the offence under Section 419 I.P.C.(impersonation) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and found him not guilty for the offence under Section 471 I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner preferred appeal to the court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam, and IV Additional District and Sessions J u d g e , Visakhapatnam on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that trial court clearly held that prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner used fabricated document to secure job and the allegation of impersonation and use of forged document are interlinked because according to prosecution to secure job only he pressed into service false document and when the trial court found that there is no evidence for use of false document, convicting revision petitioner for the offence of impersonation on the self same evidence is not legal.
He further submitted that prosecution failed to prove that the revision petitioner is not ‘Pasupula Venkateswararao and that he is ‘Boddu Venkata Ramana.’ He further submitted that absolutely there is no evidence to show that revision petitioner is not Pasupula Venkateswararao. He further submitted that trial court relied on the defects of the defence side but in a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to prove the allegation beyond all reasonable doubt and the court cannot rely on the defects of the defence to convict an accused person. He further submitted that according to prosecution, P.W.9 conducted enquiry about impersonation and he visited village of Boddu Venkata Ramana and he never visited the house of accused in his village which is near Chodavaram.
He further submitted that according to prosecution, there was election card but the same is not produced. He further submitted that Pasupula Venkateswararao is not a fictitious person and findings of trial court on the point of impersonation is contrary to the known proposition of law.
He further submitted that reasons of the trial court for convicting the accused are not sound and findings are incorrect. He further submitted that there is no evidence to prove the ingredients of Section 419 I.P.C. and both the courts have wrongly convicted the revision petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prior to giving F.I.R., Vigilance Department of Port Trust conducted enquiry and that the Enquiry Report would clearly disclose that the revision petitioner is not Pasupula Venkateswara Rao and he joined service claiming himself as Pasupula Venkateswarulu. He further submitted that there is clear evidence for the charge of impersonation. He further submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence of prosecution witnesses and as there is clear evidence of impersonation, he was convicted for the offence under Section 419 I.P.C. and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
He further submitted from the evidence on record, it is clear that Pasupula Venkateswararao is no more and he died on 22-4-2001, that itself supports the prosecution case that revision petitioner is not Pasupula Venkateswararao and the fact of impersonation is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
5. POINT:
It is the specific case of prosecution that the revision petitioner by obtaining false caste certificate secured a job in Visakhapatnam Port Trust claiming himself as Pasupula Venkateswararao but he is actually Boddu Venkata Ramana. Fourteen witnesses are examined on behalf of prosecution to prove two charges leveled against the revision petitioner. Out of two charges, trial court held that prosecution failed to prove that revision petitioner produced a false document, but it found that the other charge is proved. Personnel Officer of the Port Trust is examined as P.,W.1, Foremen of Port Trust are examined as P.Ws.2 and 4 Vigilance Officer of Port Trust is examined as P.W.3, another employee of Port Trust is examined as P.W.5, father of Boddu Venkata Ramana is examined as P.W.6, employee working in Electrical Section is examined as P.W.7, Audit Officer in A.G.Office, who attested the photo and documents of the accused is examined as P.W.8. The then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kottavalasa who conducted enquiry on instructions of District Collector is examined as P.W.9, Village Talari of Santhapalem is examined as P.W.10, Assistant Secretary of Lakshmipeta Grampanchayat who earlier worked as Village Administrative Officer of Kilumulu Group of villages is examined as P.W.11 and Investigating Officers are examined as P.Ws.12 to 14.
The main objection of the revision petitioner is that prosecution failed to show that he is not Pasupula Venkateswararao and that he is Boddu Venkata Ramana.
P.W.9 Mandal Revenue Officer of Kottavalasa who conducted enquiry on the instructions of District Collector, Vijayawada in the year, 1997 deposed that he went to Santtapalem village of Kothavalasa Mandal which is the native place of Boddu Venkata Ramana and caused enquires there. He also deposed that during the course of enquiry, he recorded the statement of the accused in this case, who stated before him that he belongs to Koppula Velama and it comes under B.C. ‘D’. He also deposed that he also verified electoral photo identity card of the accused and submitted his report which is marked as Ex.P.2. In the cross examination, except putting suggestions that he did not cause any enquiry and did not record statement of the accused, nothing precious was elicited from him. In Ex.P.2 report, P.W.9 clearly stated that during enquiry, Boddu Venkata Ramana attended before him and that the individual in his statement deposed that he is resident of Santhapalem and belongs to Koppula Velama caste and his father is working in Port Trust. It is also mentioned in Ex.P.2 that Boddu Venkata Ramana stated before P.W.9 that he is working in Port Trust, Visakhapatnam and said individual is having a mole on his right shoulder and another mole on the centre of his chest. It is further stated in Ex.P.2 that P.W.2 verified Xerox copy of photo with that of the face of Boddu Venkata Ramana and both of them are tallied. In the evidence, P.W.9 deposed that accused is Boddu Venkata Ramana. When such a statement is made, nothing is elicited from him disputing the identity except putting formal suggestions. The evidence of P.W.9 coupled with Ex.P.2 would clinchingly show that accused is Boddu Venkata Ramana. P.W.9 assertively stated that Boddu Venkata Ramana is resident of Santhapalem near Kottavalasa. The evidence of P.W.9 is supported and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.10 village Talayari of Santhapalem who clearly stated that accused is resident of his village and he belongs to Koppula Velama and he is working in Port Trust. The only thing elicited from P.W.10 is that he did not verify any record with regard to the caste of the accused. In villages, almost every person knows each other and normally, every person is known by his caste. P.W.10 being Village Talari working since 30 years, his evidence with regard to identify of the accused as villager of Santhaplem and son of Boddu Arjun cannot be discarded, particularly, when his evidence is supported by P.W.9. Village Administrative Officer of Musidiputtu village which is native village of Pasupula Venkateswararao is examined as P.W.11 and he clearly deposed that the said Venkateswararao is a resident of Musidiputtu village and Bagatha by caste which comes under S.T.cadre and that the said Venkateswararao is no more and died on 22-4-2001. He also stated that according to the village records, name of Venkateswararao was in the list of below poverty line and that Ex.P.11 is true copy of the list. He further deposed that his name is also shown in voter list and Ex.P.12 is the true copy of the voter list.
So from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that Pasupula Venkateswararao is resident of Musidiputtu village and he is registered as voter under Ex.P.12 and he is listed in the list of persons who are below poverty line mentioned in Ex.P.11. Further, when evidence of Ex.P.11 discloses that the said Pasupula Venkata Ramana is no more and died on 22-4- 2001, the accused claiming as Pasupula Venkateswararao is absurd and his claim without any evidence contra to the evidence of P.W.11 cannot be accepted.
The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot enter into detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case unless the findings of the courts below are perverse or illegal on the face of it. Here, the learned trial judge elaborately discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses and considering the testimony of P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 and documents Exs.P.2, P.11 and P.12 which are supported and corroborated with the other material witnesses held that the charge of impersonation is duly proved. No doubt father of Boddu Venkata Ramana has not supported the prosecution case but simply because he has not supported, other evidence on record which would show beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is not Pasupula Venkateswararao cannot be brushed aside. Both trial court and appellate court have meticulously examined the evidence and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of both the courts. Advocate for revision petitioner alternatively pleaded for reduction of sentence but considering the nature of offence, I feel that the sentence imposed by trial court is not harsh.
For these reasons, it is held that there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the courts below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 15-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.287 OF 2007 Dated 15-7-2014