Manipulated Birth Certificate To Continue As Head Of Church For One More Year? Karnataka High Court Orders Imprisonment Till Rising Of Court

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of conviction handed down by the trial court to a retired head of a church who had manipulated his date of birth certificate so as to get the benefit of continuing to be head of the church for one more year.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda however upon noting that offence was committed almost 20 years ago in 2004 and accused is aged 80-years, modified the prison term of three years and directed the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till raising of the Court.

Accused Rev Devaraj Bangera had approached the court questioning the order of the trial court and revision court convicting him for the offences punishable under sections 463, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner argued that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him and the question of manipulation of the date of birth certificate is a figment of imagination at the behest of the people to ensure that he would not get the extension in the headship of the Church. It was further contended that the material evidence collected by the prosecution is from an unknown source and therefore, the custody of the document is not properly appreciated. 

The prosecution supported the judgments of the trial courts and submitted that in a matter of this nature, grant of probation would send a wrong signal to the society and therefore, sought for dismissing the revision petition.

The bench noted that prime documents for establishing the case against the petitioner are school admission register and school register. The date of birth found on those documents and the disputed documents do not tally, the same would prima-facie establish the allegations found in the private complaint. Court said prosecution also placed sufficient evidence before the Court to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt.

“Material evidence on record is thus sufficient enough to record an order of conviction which has been rightly done by learned Magistrate. In the Appellate Court, learned District Judge, revisited the prosecution evidence, in the light of the appeal grounds and did not find any one of the grounds to upset the binding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate," Court said.

However, it added that both the Trial Magistrate and Judge in the First Appellate Court failed to note the age of the accused.

Accordingly it held, “Taking note of the age of the accused, enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000 inclusive of already imposed fine amount of Rs.15,000 and directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a day till raising of this Court, would meet the ends of justice, as the accused revision petitioner is before this Court.”

Appearance: Advocate B V Pinto for Petitioner.

HCGP Vinay Mahadevaiah for Respondent

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 258

Case Title: Rev. Devaraj Bangera And State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.67 OF 2015

Click Here To Read/Download Order