Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Pampana Gouda @ Pampa on 20 April, 2023

Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad

                                                    -1-
                                                               CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                                         DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2023

                                                  PRESENT

                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

                                                    AND

                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100192 OF 2019


                      BETWEEN:

                            STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            REPRESENTED BY THE
                            DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                            HAMPI SUB-DIVISION,
                            KAMALAPURA, DIST. BALLARI.

                            THROUGH THE ADDL.
                            STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                            ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
                            HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                            DHARWAD BENCH.                     .. APPELANT

VIJAYALAKSHMI
                      (By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
M KANKUPPI



Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
Location: High
                      AND
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench



                            PAMPASNA GIOUDA @ PAMPA
                            S/O. LATE AYYAPPA,
                            AGE 26 YEARS,
                            OCC.- COOLIE,
                            R/O.-NEAR HOUSE OF ANDRA DOCTOR, BUKKASAGARA
                            VILLAGE,                HOSAPETE TALUKA, DIST.
                            BALLARI.

                                                                      ...RESPONDENT
                      (By SRI R.M. JAVED, ADV.)
                              -2-
                                            CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019



      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.121/2015
AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 21.07.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.121/2015 AND TO
CONVICT THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 376 OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 5
POCSO ACT 2012, UNDER SECTION 3(1) (XII), 3(2) (V) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT 1989 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.04.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA. J, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2018 passed in Special Case No.121/2015 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari ('Trial Court' for short), acquitting the accused for the offe nces punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short) and Section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the Trial Court. -3- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019

3. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

PW-1 is the complainant, mother of the victim and wife of PW-3, who are the residents of Venkatapura village, Hosapete Taluk, Ballari District. The victim was studying in 5th standard at Government Higher Primary School, Venkatapura in the year 2015. On 21.8.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., the victim left the house to attend school, as it was Monday and working day for the school. When the victim was standing near Venkatapura Bus stand on the way to school, accused, who is a resident of Bukkasagara village of Hosapete taluk of Ballari district, approached her, offered Rs.50/- and asked her to accompany him. When she refused, he forcibly kidnapped her, took her to Kamalapura in the bus. At about 12.15 p.m., he carried her near a well situated behind Tourist toilet near Queen's Bath House on Kamalapura-Hampi Road and knowing fully well that the victim is a minor and she belongs to Scheduled Tribe, he committed sexual assault against her. By the act of the accused, victim -4- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 raised hue and cry. PW-4/Suresha and PW-5/Nagaraj, CW-11/Ravi Kumar, the security guards deployed at the site by the International Heritage Centre, came to the rescue of the victim and caught hold of the accused when he tried to run away from the spot. The victim was rescued, pacified and she was sent home to bring her parents to the Police Station. The victim went home, informed her mother/PW-1 and father/PW-3, they along with the victim came to Hampi Tourism Police Station and set the law into motion by filing a complaint. The accused was arrested and brought before the Special Court on 22.08.2015. He was subjected to judicial custody. PW-

16/Smt.Lavanya, Dy.S.P. has investigated the matter and PW-15/D.D.Malagi, Dy.S.P. has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs-1 to 16, relied on 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24 and 6 material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 6 in order to establish its case. The trial court has examined the accused under -5- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing both sides and on assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State is before this court on various grounds.

5. We have heard the arguments of Sri V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP for the State and Sri.R.M.Javed, learned counsel for the accused.

6. It is the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. The trial court has totally ignored the testimonies of PWs-1, 2 and 3. PW-1, the mother of victim, PW-2, the victim herself and PW-3, her father and PW-4/Suresh, Security Guard working at the spot are the material witnesses to the prosecution. The victim has narrated the alleged incident, PW-4 had seen the accused as well as the victim at the spot when the victim raised hue and cry. The accused as well as the victim, both are not the residents of Kamalapura, they hail from different places and they were found near Queen's -6- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 Bath House of Mahanavami Dibba at the relevant point of time. The trial court lost sight of the sensitivity of the case that it is dealing with the victim, who was a minor and the accused committed sexual assault against the victim. The trial court has not removed the grain out of the chop and thrown out of the entire chop containing grains, which are qualitative in nature and the court has acted insensitively on the ground that the accused was in judicial custody from the day one. This wrong finding given by the trial court requires to be set aside and the accused has to be convicted.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the alleged incident took place at 12.15 p.m. whereas the complaint was filed at 4.30 p.m. There is a delay in filing the complaint though the Police Station is situated within the limits of Hampi. The victim has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and also deposed before the Trial Court. Both the statements are contrary to each other. Victim says that she went to school at 10.00 a.m. on 21.08.2015 -7- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 and the school was closed. But PW-10/Head Master of the said school says that 21.08.2015 was working for the school, the victim was absent on that day. The medical officer who examined the victim clearly gave an opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the victim has undergone sexual assault. When the victim was brought to the hospital, she gave the history that she attended the school along with her friend Manohari. Both went out of the school to get the books. The said Manohari is a very relevant witness but she is not found either in the witness list nor brought before the court. PWs-4 and 5, who are the eyewitnesses examined, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Since the victim was residing near the school, there was no occasion for her to go near the bus stand or move in the bus. The bus driver, conductor or co-passengers, who were traveling with the victim and the accused while traveling from Venkatapura to Kamalapur, have not been examined by the prosecution. Though it was a working day, the victim has stated that school was closed. Before the court, she -8- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 deposes contrary to the recitals made in the complaint. All the material witnesses through PW-7 and PW-8 is also not useful as they turned hostile. The father of the victim has admitted that they have received Rs.25,000/- from the Government as compensation. As the accused was in judicial custody for almost three years and there are no evidence to prove the alleged charges and for this reason, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is a cloud of doubt in the prosecution case and acquitted the accused and he supported the impugned judgment.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and we have carefully perused the original records.

9. The trial court has recorded its findings that the testimony of PW-2 is contradicting from the date of filing of the complaint till she deposes before the court. The incident took place in a tourist place where the security guards and labourers were working, tourists and other public moving around the said place and it is not an -9- CRL.A No. 100192 of 2019 isolated place. PWs-4 and 5, the security guards, who are deployed at the spot, did not utter a single word against the accused committing any offence against the victim. The material witnesses have turned hostile, the incident took place in a public place, the evidence of the Investigating Officer did not come to the support of the prosecution. The accused and the victim belong to different places, they were totally unknown to each other, the accused was not knowing the caste of the victim, there is no occasion for the victim to accompany an unknown person. The evidence brought out that the victim was carried from the school, but the Head Master says that the victim was absent on that day for the school. One Manohari, friend of victim, who was accompanying the victim, is a material witness, but she was not examined. The testimony of the victim and her parents is not trustworthy and in view of the material contradictions and improvements, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-2, the victim, PWs-4 and 5, the eyewitnesses, PWs-1

- 10 -

and 3, the parents of the victim and PW-10, the Head Master of the school, PW-13/Dr.Shailaja V.Patil, the medical officer and PWs-15 and 16, the Investigating Officers to explain its version. Let us see the weight of the evidence, which the prosecution is relying upon.

11. The testimony of PW-1 shows that on the date of incident, the victim had gone to the school. Since the school was closed, she was returning home. At that time, the accused approached and offered her Rs.50/- and informed that her father is waiting for her and took her to Kamalapura. Near the well, the accused asked her to derobe herself, when she refused, he threatened her and made to her derobe herself. He also derobed himself and did sexual assault against her. When the victim raised hue and cry, the people around rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused, rescued the victim and sent her to bring the mother. By 2.00 p.m., she returned home and informed the said aspect to mother. Mother along with her husband took the victim to the Police Station and filed Ex.P1/complaint. The Police took the victim to the Hospet

- 11 -

Hospital and also to the court at Hospet to record her statement.

12. The testimony of PW-3 shows that two years ago, when he was in his house, the victim came with a history that one boy from Bukkasagar took her to Hampi, derobed himself and her. Hence, he accompanied his wife and filed the complaint to the Police.

13. The testimony of PW-2, the victim, shows that her school is situated abutting the road. At about 10.00 a.m. she had gone to school, since it was closed, she was returning home, near bus stop of Venkatapura, the accused asked her to accompany him as her father is waiting for her. He took her to Kamalapura in bus, near the well, on the steps, he asked her to raise her hands and thereafter he lifted her garments and removed her inner- garments and removed his innerwear and put his penis into her genital, due to which, she suffered pain and cried for help. The people nearby rushed to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the accused, the accused was taken to the Police. The people who gathered there

- 12 -

gave her Rs.20/- and asked her to go home and bring her parents. Hence, she went home and informed her parents. Thereafter her mother took her to the Police Station to file the complaint. The Police have also taken her to Hospet hospital. After medical examination, she was taken to Magistrate, where she gave her statement as per Ex.P2. She identified the accused as the assailant.

14. PWs-4 and 5 are the eye-witnesses. The testimony of PW-4 shows that on the date of incident, he was working as a security guard near Queen's Bath House, Hampi. He came to know about gathering of people. He rushed to the spot and found the presence of the accused and the victim.

15. The testimony of PW-5 shows that he was working as a Guard in the Archeology Department at Kamalapura. Near Mahanavami Dibba of Hampi, he heard a quarrel and many people were gathered at the spot, he rushed to the spot and found the presence of the accused and the victim. Except this, both did not speak anything about the accused committing any sexual assault against

- 13 -

the victim. They resiled from their previous statements as per Exs.P9 and P11 respectively. PWs-4 and 5 have been cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but the aspect deposed by them has not been denied. Though PWs-4 and 5 have turned hostile, their evidence speak in support of the victim that on the date of incident, the accused and the victim were present and there was a galata near the place of incident.

16. PW-6, auto driver is a panch witness to Ex.P10/spot mahazar. His testimony shows that he was called near to the Queen's Bath House at Hampi, on the pretext that there was a rape against a girl. The Police have taken Exs.P3 to 8/photographs and have also drawn Ex.P10/panchanama and took his signature. Though in the cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance of the contents of the mahazar, he attested Ex.P10 at the request of the Police, his testimony is clear that near Queen's Bath House, Police have drawn the mahazar on the pretext of rape against the girl.

- 14 -

17. PW-7/Veeresh and PW-8/Jambaiah, both are the panch witnesses to the seizure of clothes of the victim as well as the accused under Exs.P12 and P13. Their testimony shows that the Police have called them to the Police Station, drawn Ex.P12/mahazar by seizing three clothes of the victim and on the Ex.P13/mahazar seizing three cloths of the accused.

18. The testimony of PW-9/Rajamma R., WASI shows that she has escorted the victim on 21.08.2015 to Government Hospital, Hospet for medical examination and after medical examination, the Doctor gave her 10 articles to carry. She brought it and produced before the Investigating officer.

19. The testimony of PW-10/J.M.Shakuntalabai, Head Master in the Government Higher Primary School, Venkatapura, shows that, 21.08.2015 was the working day for the school. The victim was a student of her school. On that day, she did not attend the school. The victim was studying in 5th standard and her date of birth was

- 15 -

10.05.2005. To the said effect, she gave certificate as per Ex.P14.

20. The testimony of PW-11/Shivappa, the Village Accountant at Kamalapura, shows that on 25.08.2015 he has issued Ex.P15(b)/Record of Rights in respect of Sy.No.111 of Kamalapura where the alleged incident said to have taken place.

21. The testimony of PW-12/Dr.Hariprasad, the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Hospet, shows that on 22.08.2015, the accused was brought before him with a history of sexual assault and he has examined the accused and issued Ex.P18/certificate and sampled eight articles from the accused and gave the opinion that he was fit enough to do sexual activity.

22. The testimony of PW-13/Dr.Shailaja A.Patil, the senior Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Koppala shows that on 21.08.2015, the victim was brought to the hospital with a history that on the said date at 12.00 noon, she was subjected to sexual assault. When she examined

- 16 -

the victim, she did not observe any bodily injury, hymen of the victim was intact, she gave the certificate as per Ex.P19 that there was no sexual assault on the victim. She has taken samples like nails, pubic hair, etc. and handed over them to the Police for FSL examination. She is very clear and definite that the victim was around 10 years and at that tender age, the hymen will be flexible and she also gave her opinion to the clarification to the Investigating Officer that if really the accused has penetrated his penis to the genital of the victim, the hymen could not have been intact. Hence, the medical evidence is very clear that there was no sexual assault against the victim.

23. The testimony of PW-14/Ningappa, Asst.Executive Engineer of PWD was taken to the spot by CW-16/B.Rafiq, the Head Constable, shown the place and he has drawn Ex.P22/sketch to the Police. He is a formal witness and much weight cannot be attached to him as the sketch was prepared at the instance of the Police.

- 17 -

24. The most crucial witnesses to the case are the Investigating Officers/PWs-15 and 16. PW- 16/Smt.Lavanya, Dy.S.P. who investigated the matter. Her testimony shows that on 21.8.2015 she took up the investigation from CW-27/Anjaneya M.S., PSI, Hampi Police Station. She visited the spot and drawn Ex.P10/mahazar and the spot was shown to her by the victim. She has prepared hand-made sketch as per Ex.P24 and taken Exs.P3 to P8/photograhps. She ahs also arrested the accused, recorded his voluntary statement, subjected him to medical examination. She has received the material objects at M.Os.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 from the hospital, seized them under Exs.P12 and P13/mahazar. She took the victim to the Magistrate for recording her statement. She also collected Ex.P15(b)/Record of Rights extract from the Revenue Authorities.

25. The testimony of PW-15/D.D.Malagi, the Dy.S.P., who took over the investigation from PW-16 on 04.09.2015. On 04.09.2015, he received Ex.P22 from PW-14, Ex.P16/caste certificate of the victim from the

- 18 -

Tahsildar, Hospet and Ex.P21/FSL report and also got further opinion report from PW-13 as per Ex.P19 and further clarification opinion under Ex.P23 and on completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet.

26. This is the weight of evidence that the prosecution is relying upon, so as to explain charge against the accused.

27. In view of the evidence relied and the arguments canvassed on behalf of the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the trial court has wrongly appreciated the prosecution evidence?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal and calls for interference?

28. It is pertinent to note that when the victim was brought before PW-13/the lady Medical officer, the history was furnished by the victim that she attended school on the alleged date of incident. She came out of the school

- 19 -

along with her friend Manohari to get the books. While coming, the accused met her and took her to Queen's Bath House promising that he will pay money and he made the victim to remove her clothes and he also removed the clothes. At that time, the victim started shouting and for this reason, four persons came and caught hold of the accused, hit him and took him to the Police Station.

29. We have also carefully perused the complaint at Ex.P1. The recitals of the complaint point out that at 10.00 a.m. she was going to the school near the Bus stand when the accused met her. He offered to pay Rs.50 and took her to Kamalapura. From Kamalapura, he took her to Queen's Bath House at Hampi behind the Tourists toilet and on the steps of the well at about 12.15 p.m., he attempted to commit rape against her. Hence, the public came to her rescue and caught hold of the accused, but the accused ran away. PWs-4 and 5 informed the identity of the accused to her, gave her Rs.20/- and she went home and informed the same to her parents and she was brought to the Police Station to file the complaint.

- 20 -

30. Ex.P2 is the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, Hospet. Unfortunately, the trial court without understanding the concept of Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, casually marked the said statement as Ex.P2. The statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is on par with the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The purpose of recording Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement is to preserve the valuable evidence. Having regard to the seriousness of the offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act, the quantum of punishment is severe, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement cannot be marked as an evidence, but it could be used for confrontation in the cross-examination of the victim, if the victim turns hostile. However, for the sake of convenience, when we refer the recitals of Ex.P2, we find astonishing facts contrary to what has been pleaded in Ex.P1. Before the Magistrate, the victim stated that the accused came to her school, has informed her that her father is awaiting and she has to accompany him, when

- 21 -

she refused, he forcibly took her to Kamalapura that he was carrying her to father. Same is not found in Ex.P1. At the place of incident, it is the accused, who lifted her frock, removed her panty and put his penis on her genital. He gagged her mouth, when he released it, she raised hue and cry. At that time, PWs-3 and 4 came and rescued her. The people gathered, caught hold of the accused and handed over him to the Police.

31. The facts narrated in Ex.P1, facts narrated before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as per Ex.P2 and the evidence of the PW-2/victim in the witness box are contrary and new things are added. We notice from the evidence of PW-2 that she was studying in 5th standard at Government School, Venaktapura, on 21.08.2015, she went to school, but it was closed and she was returning home. If the school was closed and she was returning home, how is it possible for the accused to come to her school and take her away. As we noticed from the evidence of Head Master that the school was working on that day, victim was absent for the school. According to

- 22 -

the victim, near the Bus stand of the village, the accused told that he is taking her to her father. If the evidence of PW-2, PWs-1 and 3 is appreciated along with PWs-4 and 5 having regard to the medical evidence by PW-13, it is very clear that there was no sexual assault against the victim. There was no delay in the examination of the victim as well as the accused. Samples were sent for FSL examination and the FSL report at Ex.P21 points out no seminal stains on the seized articles, no spermatozoa or bloodstains, the sample hairs were cut hairs and opinion cannot be given and the semen and the blood were disintegrated and no opinion can be given. Hence, the FSL report and the opinion report of the Medical Officers point out nothing in support of the prosecution.

32. Adverting to the arguments of the learned Addl.SPP, the manner of appreciation of evidence in a case under the provisions of the POCSO Act is casual and it was not senseful as noticed in the impugned judgment, we have re-appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. As rightly pointed out by Sri.R.M.Javed, learned defence

- 23 -

counsel that the testimony of victim, her parents, the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence point out that there was no sexual assault against the victim. The evidence also did not point out anything that the accused was known to the victim earlier, so also her caste, only because of the fact that victim belongs to Scheduled Tribe, the provisions of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been incorporated, but the same has not been established. The ingredients of offence under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC has not been explained and the medical evidence also did not point out the ingredients of 'penetrative sexual assault' as defined under Sections 4 or 5 of the POCSO Act.

33. As we have analyzed the evidence as above, the victim was present near the Queen's Bath House well of Hampi. Because of victim raised hue and cry, galata took place, people gathered, accused was caught hold and taken to the Police Station and he was subjected to judicial custody for a period of 2 years 11 months i.e., from 22,08.2015 till 21.07.2018. No doubt, we accept the

- 24 -

discussion made by the trial court in the impugned judgment. The evidence points out that the accused physically meddled with the victim near the steps of the well. The statement of the victim points out that the accused lifted her innerwear. He also derobed himself and he put his penis to her genital. But this aspect is hard to accept as the victim gives three different versions and this was the reason for the Trial Court to decline to accept the version of the victim.

34. As we have observed above, there is inconsistency in the evidence of the victim, we are not persuaded to accept the arguments of the learned Addl.SPP. If the evidence of the victim is trustworthy and reliable, then there is no need for corroboration of her testimony. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need for medical opinion. Even we have considered the evidence in the context of Section 7 of the POCSO Act that the accused has committed any sexual assault or does any other act with sexual intent, which involves physical contact without penetration

- 25 -

against the victim. The allegations made in the complaint at Ex.P1, the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. at Ex.P2, so also the testimony of PWs-1 and 3 and the victim, we are not convinced to accept the argument of learned Addl.SPP. Merely because the victim comes and stated something in the witness box, which is not suffice to declare that her testimony is trustworthy. Here in this case, the victim tells at home that she is going to school, but she did not go to school, she goes to Kamalapura, Hampi along with her friend Manohari. Manohari is an important witness and also the person, who has seen the victim along with the accused traveling to Kamalapura, but she has not been examined at all. Merely because the accused and the victim were found near Queen's Bath House is not sufficient to hold that the accused has carried the victim to Hampi with sexual intent. What was transpired at the spot was not brought out correctly by the Investigating Officer and the evidence of the prosecution is not inspiring the confidence of the court. Hence, the reasons recorded by the trial court that the evidence is not

- 26 -

trustworthy for acceptance and we are of the considered opinion that the order of acquittal is just and proper. Even otherwise, the accused was in judicial custody for a period of 2 years 11 months. Even assuming that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, the punishment prescribed is not less than three years but which may extend to five years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, even assuming that the accused is guilty of Section 8 of the POCSO Act, his judicial custody can be treated as sufficient sentence.

36. On re-appreciation of the evidence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed at the Bar, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for acquittal and does not call for interference by this Court.

- 27 -

37. In view of the discussion made above, we answer both the points raised above in the negative. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

SD/-

JUDGE SD/-

JUDGE KNM/-