Witness cannot be hauled into web of crime, says HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A person cannot be dragged into the web of crime only because he is an attesting witness on a legal document, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

Citing examples of the Supreme Court and Chattishgarh HC judgements, the Court said, “An attesting witness cannot be hauled into the web of crime, if there is no other allegation except that he is an attesting witness.”

Justice M Nagaprasanna gave his judgement on a petition filed by one Rajesh Totaganti, from Ranebennur, who is the second accused in the case.

He was the attesting witness on a sale deed document that was allegedly used to illegally sell a property. One Manjappa had filed a private complaint in October 2015 after which the Magistrate had ordered for investigation.

A charge sheet was filed by the police subsequently. This was challenged by Rajesh in the HC. His advocate argued that the complainant and the first accused are relatives and Rajesh was only a friend of the first accused and had put his signature as an attesting witness on the sale deed.

The sale deed is alleged to be a forgery but the benefit has gone to accused number one and there is no other allegation against Rajesh except that he has signed the document as a witness.

The HC in its recent judgement noted that “Except this allegation of the petitioner acting as an attesting witness and a friend of accused No.1, there is no other allegation against the petitioner that would touch upon any of the ingredients of the alleged offences.”

Comparing the case with similar other judgements of the Supreme Court, the HC said, “In the case at hand as well, a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would indicate no other allegation except the fact that the petitioner was a friend of accused No.1 and an attesting witness to the sale deed. The sale deed is alleged to be the subject of fraud. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner would merit acceptance and outweigh the submissions made by the lear ned HCGP for the State.”

The HC therefore quashed the case against Rajesh. However, it said that “It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the other accused pending before the concerned Court.” — (CrlP 100659/2023)