Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Nawaz on 9 September, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB
CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1004 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PUNJALAKATTE POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE - SPP-II)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUMATHY 1. NAWAZ
KANNAN S/O HANZ
Location: AGED 21 YEARS
High Court R/AT KALLAGUDDE MANE
of Karnataka
BANGERUKATTE
MACHINA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214
AADHAR CARD ADDRESS:
ARAMANEGUDDE MANE
BALLAMANJA
MACHINA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214.
2. SMT GUNAVATHI
W/O RAMESH ACHARYA
R/AT KARPADI HOUSE
KUKTHILA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB
CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
D K DISTRICT
MANGALURU 574214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T - ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
CR.PC PRAYING TO: a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.11.2022 PASSED IN
SPL.CASE NO.193/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K.
MANGALURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/
RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.376 AND 506 OF IPC;
b) SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
15.11.2022 PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.193/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE COURT OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE /
FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.376 AND 506 OF
IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL; AND c) CONVICT
AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT AND
SEC.376 AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB
CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This appeal is filed by the State challenging the acquittal judgment dated 15.11.2022 rendered by the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTSC- II (POCSO), D.K., Mangaluru, in Special Case No.193/2021, acquitting the accused / Respondent No.1 of offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO and Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and thereby praying to convict him for the aforesaid offences.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused befriended the victim / CW-1 while she was in her 10th Standard and both of them started speaking over phone frequently. It is stated that on 14.02.2021 at about 4:00 P.M. when the victim was alone in her house situated at Karpadi House, Puthila Village, the Accused went to the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 house of the victim on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-19- V-1484 and sexually assaulted the victim in the bed room, though the victim resisted his act. It is further stated that the victim was threatened that her mother and younger brother could be eliminated if she revealed the act to anyone. Again on 26.09.2021 at about 1.30 P.M., it is stated that the accused again visited the victim and again sexually assaulted her. Based on the complaint lodged by the victim, a case came to be registered against the accused under Sections 506 and 376 (2) IPC besides Section 6 of POCSO Act in Crime No.66/2021 of Punjalakatte Police Station.
3. Subsequent to registration of the crime by the Investigating Agency, the Investigating Officer took up the case for investigation and conducted thorough investigation and during investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and also secured information by conducting mahazar at Exhibit P2 in the presence of PW-1 and PW-6. Exhibit P9 is the CD spot mahazar and Exhibit -5- NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 P11 is the Medical report of the victim. Exhibit P13 is another mahazar conducted by the I.O in the presence of panch witnesses. Exhibit P18 is the Medical Report of the accused. Exhibit P19 is the School Certificate of the victim girl. These are the documents which have been facilitated and secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation and laid a charge-sheet against the accused before the Committal Court. The case was committed to the Special Court for trial for offences against the accused persons. Subsequently, the Trial Court heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the defence Counsel for the accused and charges were framed. The charges were read over to the accused in a language known to him and the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused in order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked several documents as per Exhibit P1 to P27 and also material objects were got marked as MO-1 to MO-6 and closed the -6- NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 case of the prosecution. Exhibit D1 being the 'B' extract was marked on behalf of the defence. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for enabling him to answer the incriminating evidence appearing against him wherein the accused had declined the incriminating evidence. The same was recorded separately. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter into defence evidence if any under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. But the accused did not enter into defence evidence. Accordingly, it was recorded. Subsequently, heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the Defence counsel for the accused. After closure of evidence the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTSC- II (POCSO), Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Special Case No.193/2021 vide Judgment dated 15.11.2022, acquitted the Accused for the above said offences. It is the said judgment of Acquittal which is under challenge in this appeal by the State, urging various grounds. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
4. Heard Shri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the appellant / State as well as the learned counsel Shri Hareesh Bhandary T for Respondent No.1 / accused and perused the evidence as well as the material available on record.
5. Shri Vijayakumar Majage, learned SPP-II for the State contends that the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court is illegal, invalid and contrary to the evidence and material on record and hence, the same is liable to be set-aside. He further contends that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the material evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. The non-appreciation of the evidence and material on record in a proper perspective has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
6. It is his contention that though there is material evidence of the fact that the accused has sexually assaulted the Victim / PW-1, a minor girl aged about 17 years, the Trial Court without considering the same has -8- NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 acquitted the accused. PW-1 who is the victim has specifically stated in her evidence that the accused has on several occasions sexually assaulted her, against her wishes. In spite of the same, her evidence has been disbelieved by the Trial Court solely on the ground that there were certain improvements in her evidence when compared with the complaint filed by her at Ex.P1, in the 164 Statement at Ex.P10 and history given as per Ex.P11 that is the medical report of the victim.
7. Though the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, solely on the ground that there were improvements in the evidence of PW-1, the Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of PW-1 the victim, PW-2 the mother of the victim and PW-3 the younger brother of the victim and hence, it is contended that the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court requires to be set-aside.
8. Further, PW-5 is the Doctor who has examined the victim and who has recorded the history given by the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 victim. The Report given by PW-5 is marked as Ex.P11. The said Report reflects that hymen was absent and PW-5 in her evidence has deposed that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse.
9. It is contended that the prosecution based on both oral and documentary evidence, had proved that the accused has sexually assaulted the victim whereas, the Trial Court barely on the ground that there were certain improvements in the evidence of PW-1, has proceeded to wrongly acquit the accused without taking into consideration the heinous act committed by the accused. Thus, learned SPP-II prays that the Judgment and Order of Acquittal passed by the Trial Court be set-aside the appellant / accused be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.
10. Per contra, learned counsel Shri Hareesh Bhandary T appearing for Respondent No.1 / accused contends that the Trial Court on a proper appreciation of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 the facts and the evidence on record both oral and documentary, has arrived at a just and reasonable conclusion of acquitting the accused and hence, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court, needs no interference in this appeal preferred by the State. Thus, he prays to dismiss the appeal as being without any merit.
11. In the context of the contentions made by the learned SPP-2 for the appellant / State and the learned counsel for the first respondent / accused, it is relevant to state that the victim is none other than the daughter of PW-2 / Gunavathi and based upon her complaint at Exhibit P1 dated 27.09.2021, criminal law was set into motion. The allegation was that the accused had committed rape on the victim twice, i.e. on 14.02.2021 and on 26.09.2021 when the victim was alone present in her house. The Woman Sub-Inspector of Punjalakatte P.S. PW-9/ Smt. Sowmya had registered the crime against the accused by recording FIR as per Exhibit P-20 and subjected PW-1 /
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 victim for medical examination at Lady Goschen Hospital on the said day. PW-5 / Dr. Lekha from the Lady Goschen Hospital at Mangaluru City, had subjected the victim to medical examination. But the evidence of PW-5 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 / victim and also with the averments made in Exhibit P1 of the complaint as per PW-2 / Smt. Gunavathi.
12. Exhibit P11 is the Medical report issued by the Doctor wherein the opinion has been given that the hymen of the victim was found absent and there is evidence suggestive of sexual intercourse. PW-11 / Shri Shiva Kumar B, who is the Police Inspector has deposed the manner in which he had gathered the evidence as an I.O. and filed charge-sheet against the accused before the court having jurisdiction to deal the matter.
13. Ex.P2 is the mahazar and Ex.P17 is the sketch said to have been drawn by the Investigating Officer at the time of the spot mahazar conducted with the assistance of the victim and in the presence of the witness PW.6 / Sri.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 Vasanth Poojary so also the victim's mother. In the evidence, himself, the victim & her mother PW.2 had asserted their presence at the time when the mahazar was conducted by the investigation officer at the spot. The learned defence counsel had also cross- examined PW.1, 2, 6 and the investigating officer at length to strengthen his contention whether Exhibits P2 & P17 were created by PW.11 / Shiva Kumar B in his office. However, the existence of the house where the incident allegedly took place and its topographical condition as described is not at all disputed. More over, the photographs marked at Ex.P3 to 8 proves the presence of PW.11 at the spot to conduct the mahazar and seizure of victim's cloths marked at M.O.1 to 3 allegedly worn by her at the time of an incident.
14. The victim has stated that about 3 months prior to the lodging of the complaint dated 27.9.2021, the accused came in his motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-V-1484 and raped her under the threat of killing her family
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 members in the event she disclosed the incident to anybody & again on 26.9.2021 at about 1.30 p.m, he had raped inside her house for the second time. Thus according to the victim, the first incident took place almost in the month of June 2021 but not on 14.2.2021, which contradicts the recitals of her complaint so also the police charge sheet.
15. Further, it is to be noticed that PW.5 / Dr.Lekha has examined the victim on 27.9.2021 at the instance of the police. This witness has deposed before the Trial Court about the information of the alleged incident and its background given by the victim and has given the Medical Report of the victim girl as per Ex.P11. It is stated in the report that about 3 years ago when the victim girl was studying in 10th standard at Ballamanja school, she met one Nawaz, who is now 20 years, residing at Bangerakatte, Mestri by occupation, who had come to school for Kabbadi match. He had sent his phone number through his brother Naufal who was in the same school.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 Naufal had threatened the victim girl to call Nawaz, else he will tell everyone. So victim called Nawaz, who had messaged her that he proposed to marry her. The victim has stated that Nawaz would meet her after school hours, hug her, kiss her and give her chocolates. He would often pressurize her for sexual intercourse saying it was common. On February 14th 2021 Valentine's day he had called her at 4 p.m. and on confirming that no one was present at her home, he came to her house and threatened to kill her mother & brother if she did not consent and had forcible sexual intercourse with her in her brother's room. He would often call her to an abandoned house in the neighborhood during afternoon and evening time and have sexual intercourse with her in the bathroom floor. This happened about 4-5 times. On 26.9.2021 at 1.30 p.m he called her to a hill nearby and had intercourse with her behind the trees on the ground. She had stated that Nawaz threatened to kill her if she told about the same to anyone. However, the victim girl told this to her mother in the evening and then lodged the complaint.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
16. In view of the said statement of the victim given to PW-5 / Dr. Lekha, it is revealed that the victim is untrustworthy for the reason that the above story is entirely different from the prosecution theory which reveals the rape having been committed twice inside the victim's house. Hence, though the accused had raped the victim girl multiple times in various places, her complaint at Exhibit P1 mentioned that she was raped only twice. Hence, the question arises as to the very genuineness of the rape committed on the victim itself. Further according to PW.2, the victim has informed her about the alleged rape dated 26.9.2021 only and she did not have the knowledge of the incident that took place on 14.2.2021. The multiple versions of the victim and the evidence of PW.2 is a piece of proof which renders the evidence of PW.3 also to be baseless. The aforesaid discussion demonstrates the incurable contradictions & inconsistencies as to the truth of rape. Therefore, the evidence of the victim, her mother PW.2 and the relative PW.3 does not assume any weightage to substantiate the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 prosecution theory nor inspires the court to believe the occurrence of the incident.
17. Further, as per the recitals of the complaint and charge sheet, the accused came on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-V-1484 to the house of the victim and raped her. But the evidence on record, particularly the 'B' extract got marked vide Ex.D1 by way of confrontation during the evidence of the Investigating Officer, discloses that the said vehicle belongs to one Babu S/o Shivappa of a different village. The prosecution case is thus further damaged.
18. PW.11 / I.O. claimed to have seized the clothes of the victim marked at M.O.1 to 3 under the mahazar at Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.6 / Sri. Vasanth Poojary and the clothes of the accused at M.O.4 to 6 under the mahazar at Ex.P12 in the presence of the witness PW.6 / Sri. Pramod and others. Though the learned counsel has denied the seizure but the same is evidenced by the photographs marked at Ex.P14. The head constable PW.10
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 / Sri. Vijay Kumar Rai asserts that he took the photographs and prepared the draft of mahazars as per the dictation of the Investigating Officer. But the related FSL report marked at Ex.P27 with the opinion that no blood and seminal stains were detected, is against the prosecution. Further, it does not corroborate with the provisional opinion of PW.5 / Dr.Lekha with regard to the possibility of the sexual intercourse.
19. The uncertainity and unbelievable versions of the victim arising from the above discussion probablises the defence of the accused that, he is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of some activists belonging to Hindu organizations only on the ground that he is a Mohammedan by religion. In spite of the undisputed evidence adduced by PW.7 / Dr. Rashmi.K.S from the Lady Goschen Hospital and the medical certificate issued by her vide Ex.P18 to the effect that the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse, but in the absence of convincing evidence, his
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 capability as such alone is not a ground to accept the theory put forth by the prosecution.
20. In the totality of circumstances, the allegations made by the victim in the complaint and the statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P10 so also the related evidence on record, is doubtful which does not support the charge sheet allegations. Under the said circumstances, the provisional opinion of PW.5 in the report at Ex.P11 relating to the absence of the hymen and possibility of sexual intercourse, cannot be connected to the accused in any manner. Thus the benefit of doubt has to be extended in favour of the accused.
21. In the case on hand, it is relevant to refer Section 378 of Cr.P.C. - Appeal in case of acquittal. It is open to the High Court to re-appraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial court but only in a case when the judgment of trial court is stated to be perverse. The word 'perverse' to mean 'against the weight of evidence'. The said issue was addressed by the Hon'ble
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 Apex Court in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2010 SC 589). Further, when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration / misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. The said issue was addressed in the case of K.Prakashan v. P.K.Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258. It is also relevant to refer the case in T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 wherein it is observed that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
22. In an appeal against the acquittal, the appellate court has the undoubted power to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but, in doing so, it should not only consider every matter on record
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the Trial Court in support of its order of acquittal but also should express the reasons in its judgment which let it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. The said issue was addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom).
23. In the instant case, it is necessary to state that though the prosecution has examined in all PW-1 to PW-11 and several documents have been got marked on their part to prove the guilt against the accused, but as per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Criminal prosecution is launched against the accused and criminal law is set into motion by recording an FIR on receipt of a complaint under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequent to registration of the crime, it is the domain vested with the Investigating Authority to take up the case for
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and to investigate the case thoroughly and lay a charge-sheet against the accused. Subsequent to laying of the charge- sheet, the domain is vested with the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. and so also the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But keeping in view Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is well-known principle of law that reliance can be based upon even solitary statement of witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. This was extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raja v. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del). Insofar as Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement as referred in the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal, 2008 (8) JT 650.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023
24. In respect of plurality of witnesses, in the matter of appreciation of the evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses, but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses are to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. The domain is vested with the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the reliance of AIR 2013 SC 1204 in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs vs. Bhagwantbura (Dead) through LRs.. Further, the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, into three categories, namely,
i) wholly reliable,
ii) wholly unreliable and
iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
25. In the first two categories, there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. It is relevant to refer to the reliance of AIR 2003 SC 854 in the case of Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand.
26. However, Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as regards the concept of proving a fact, states that, 'a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.'
27. Further, Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as regards the concept of disproving a fact, states that, 'a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. This domain of appreciation is vested with the trial court for arrival of right conclusion. But, keeping in view Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the domain is vested with the prosecution as well as the defence also, but the theory requires corroboration.
28. But in the instant case though the prosecution has subjected to examination several witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and also got marked several documents as Exhibits P1 to P27 inclusive of M.O.1 to 6, but at a cursory
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 glance of the evidence of PW1 to PW-3 and PW-5 / Doctor there appears to be inconsistency and clouds of doubt in the evidence of the prosecution, which has been rightly pointed out by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, we find justification of the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. Hence, in totality of the case of the prosecution and even on close scrutiny of the evidence, also keeping in view the contentious contentions of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned SPP for the State, it is opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by facilitating worthwhile evidence. But in the criminal justice delivery system, it is the domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating positive, cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that accused had committed the alleged offences against the victim. When the doubt arises in the evidence of prosecution, the benefit of doubt always accrues in favour of the accused alone. Hence, we are of the opinion that
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:36671-DB CRL.A No. 1004 of 2023 the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused, which judgment needs no interference. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal preferred by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.
ii) Consequent upon rejection of the appeal, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.293/2021 dated 15.11.2022 acquitting the accused / Respondent No.1, for the offences under Sections 376 & 506 IPC besides Section 6 of the POCSO Act, is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE KS