Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By vs Ravi C K on 30 May, 2022
Bench: K.Somashekar, Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.832 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka by
Channapatna P.S
Ramanagara District
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 571501.
...Appellant
(By Sri. Thejesh .P - HCGP)
AND:
1. Ravi C.K
S/o Late Kadanna
Aged about 30 years
R/at 1st Main, Kenchanahalli
Rajarajeshwarinagara
Bengaluru
Permanent Residence
Gowdagere Village
Channapatana Taluk-571501.
2. Jyothi
W/o Ravisha
2
Aged about 21 years
R/at Babusapalay
Kengeri
Bengaluru - 560 060.
3. Raghu @ Raghu B
S/o Boraiah @ Appaji
Aged about 23 years
R/at Kukkurudoddi Village
Channapatana Taluk
Ramanagara District - 571501.
4. Yogesh
S/o. Ningegowda
Aged about 31 years
R/at Kukkurudoddi Village
Channapatana Taluk
Ramanagara District - 571501.
5. Harsha
S/o. Mahendra M.K
Aged about 25 years
R/at Somegowdara Street
Maddur Taluk
Mandya District-571428.
...Respondents
(By Sri. K.P. Puttaraju - Advocate for for R-2;
Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha - Advocate for R-3;
Sri. Siddaraju M - Advocate for R-4 & R-5;
Vide Court order dated 09.10.2017, appeal is
Dismissed as abated against R-1)
This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.378(1) and (3) of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to i) grant leave to
appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
02.11.2015 passed in Sessions Case No.5/2013 by the
3
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the
offences punishable under Sections 344, 366A, 368, 376,
506 and 114 r/w 34 of IPC; ii) set aside the aforesaid
judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.11.2015 passed
in Sessions Case No.5/2013 by the
III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara,
acquitting the accused/respondents by allowing this
criminal appeal; iii) convict and sentence the accused
Nos.1 to 5 / respondents for the offence punishable under
Sections 344, 366A, 368, 376, 506 and 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
This criminal appeal coming on for dictating
judgment this day, K. Somashekar .J delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.05/2013 dated 02.11.2015 acquitting the accused for offences punishable under Sections 344, 366A, 368, 376, 506 and 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the pendency of the case, accused No.1 namely Ravi C.K S/o late Kadanna had died. Consequently appeal against him stood abated vide order dated 04.01.2022. In this appeal the State is seeking to consider the grounds urged and to set aside the acquittal 4 judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.05/2013 and consequently to convict the remaining accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences stated supra.
2. Heard the learned HCGP Shri.Thejesh P for the appellant / State and so also, learned counsel Shri Syed Akbar Pasha for respondent No.3 / accused No.3 who has also taken care of the contentions of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 who are arraigned as accused in the aforesaid acquittal judgment in S.C.No.05/2013 and also on behalf of counsel who have been engaged by the aforesaid accused. Perused the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.05/2013 dated 02.11.2015 and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of PW-1 to PW-10 and also documents at Exhibits P1 to P12 inclusive of MO-1 to MO-10.
3. Factual matrix of this appeal is as under:
It transpires from the case of the prosecution that CW.2 being victim and who is arraigned as PW.2 has been 5 subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. CW.1 who is arraigned as PW.1 - Devaraju, is none other than foster father of PW.2 - being the victim girl. On 07.07.2012 at around 6.30 p.m. when the victim girl namely PW.2 was alone in the house, Accused Nos.2 to 5 are alleged to have abducted her and put her to life threat and the said victim was taken forcibly by the said accused persons, in an auto rickshaw to Nidaghatta. Victim - PW.2 was taken to Bangalore to the house of accused No.1 situated in Kengeri. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 5 secured accused No.1 to the house of accused No.2 and forcibly got the victim married to Accused No.1. Thereafter they had sent victim - PW.2 with accused No.1 and from 07.07.2012 till 03.08.2012 it is alleged that accused No.1 committed rape on the victim by abducting her and also wrongfully confining her. The aforesaid accused are alleged to have extended life threat to the victim and accused No.1 is said to have had forcible sexual intercourse with her. Accused Nos.1 to 5, with a 6 common intention, are alleged to have abducted the victim girl - PW.2 and thereafter Accused No.1 had committed sexual intercourse on her by extending life threat.
4. In pursuance of the act of accused and also on a complaint being filed by PW.1 / Devaraju, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR for the offences reflected in the substance of the FIR. Subsequent to registration of the case, the I.O. had taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and laid a charge- sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.205/2012 registered by Chennapatna Rural Police Station. After completion of the investigation the investigating officer laid the charge sheet before the Committal Court in C.C.No.1146/2012.
5. Subsequently, the committal Court has passed an order under the relevant provision of Section 209 of Cr.P.C and case was committed to the Sessions Court assigning the case in S.C.No.05/2013. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 7 to 5 were secured and had faced trial whereby charges were framed against aforesaid accused for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 368, 366A, 376, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. Charges framed were read out to the accused in language known to them but accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused were recorded by the trial Court separately.
Subsequent to framing of charges by the trial Court by following the requisite conditions of Cr.P.C, thereafter prosecution had examined PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P12 and contradictory statement of PW.2 was got marked at Exhibit D1 and so also material objects were got marked as MO-1 to MO-10. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, incriminating statements appearing against the accused were recorded as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereby the accused had denied the truth of the evidence of the prosecution adduced so far. 8 Subsequently, accused were called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on their side. Accordingly, it was recorded.
6. Subsequent to closure of the evidence of the part of the prosecution as well as the defence side, the trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the arguments of the learned defence counsel. The evidence of PW.1 who is complainant at Ex.P1 and so also PW.2 being the victim girl who had been abducted by accused Nos.2 to 5 who had secured accused No.1 and also performed her marriage with him and accused No.1 is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on her against her will. PW.4 being PSI and PW.5 - Nathegowda is Headmaster relating to securing school records in respect of proof of age factor of PW.2, were also examined. Further, PW.3 - Rajesh who is brother of victim - PW.2, PW.6 being Doctor and PW.7 also a Doctor were also subjected to examination. PW.9 - 9 N Siddaiah who is the Police inspector who laid the charge sheet against the accused. During the course of the investigation FSL report has been secured through PW.10
- Dr.Chandrashekar. These are all the evidence which has been appreciated by the trial Court in rendering an acquittal judgment in S.C.No.05/2013 for the offences reflected in the operative portion of the impugned judgment. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds by the State.
7. Learned HCGP for the State, namely Shri. Thejesh P, has taken us through the evidence of PW-1 who is the foster father of victim - PW.2 as well as the evidence of PW.3 - Rajesh, brother of victim. The version of the evidence of PW-1 finds corroborated with the evidence of PW.3. But the trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid material evidence and has rendered an acquittal judgment, which has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it requires for re-appreciation of the 10 evidence and also revisiting the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.05/2013. If not, certainly it may result in a miscarriage of justice. The grievance of the complainant is that the victim girl was abducted by accused Nos.2 to 5 who had thereafter secured accused No.1 and wrongfully confined her and accused No.1 had committed forcible sexual intercourse on her.
The second limb of the arguments is that PW.5 - Headmaster was also subjected to examination and also got marked the document at Ex.P3 which is a school certificate in respect of PW.2 - victim girl. PW.7 is the Doctor who issued certificate. This evidence finds corroborated with each other in respect of PW.2 being the victim girl. PW.6 / Dr. Suma had examined the victim girl. This evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court inclusive of evidence of PW.7 who is the Doctor who has given the radiology report in respect of PW.2 - victim certifying that her age was between 15 to 17 years. These 11 are all the material evidence which has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in order to prove the involvement of each one of the accused relating to abduction of the minor girl. Thereafter, accused No.1 has been secured by taking a call and accused No.1 has stayed in the house of accused No.2 along with the victim girl. Accused No.1 by confining her in the house of Accused No.2, is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on the victim girl. These are all the material evidence which have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. The entire evidence appreciated by the trial Court is full of Surmises and conjectures and without considering the material evidence on record. The statements of witnesses has not been appreciated in a proper perspective and the Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re- appreciating the evidence and also revisiting the impugned 12 judgment in S.C.No.05/2013 dated 02.11.2015. Thus, the learned HCGP prays for convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 366A, 368, 376, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860.
8. Whereas, learned counsel Shri. Syed Akbar Pasha for respondent No.3 who is arraigned as accused No.3 in S.C.No.05/2013 who has also taken care of the contentions of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 who are arraigned as accused, denies the abduction of PW.2 being the victim girl and securing accused No.1 - Ravi C.K and also made victim - PW.2 forcibly to got marriage with accused No.1 and sent her with accused No.1. The allegation that from 07.07.2012 to 03.08.2012 accused No.1 had committed sexual intercourse on the victim and also made her in wrongful confinement by putting life threat, is also denied.
Though prosecution has been subjected to examination several witnesses namely PW.1 - Devaraju 13 who is foster father of PW.2 / victim girl and PW.3 - Rajesh who is brother of PW.2, but prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to secure conviction of the accused for offences in respect of which the charges are framed and leveled against the accused. PW.5 - Nathegowda being Headmaster was subjected to examination on the part of prosecution and got marked the school certificate as per Ex.P3. PW.6 is the Doctor who issued medical certificate at Ex.P4 and whereby subscribing the signature. PW.7 - Dr.Basavaiah is also a doctor who issued medical certificate as per Ex.P5. The statement of the complainant got marked at Ex.P7 even complaint at Ex.P8 has been got marked. But missing complaint has been filed PW.1 - Devaraju and though the prosecution has got marked several documents such as Ex.P9 - Spot Mahazar and even mahazar has been conducted in the presence of PW.8 and also subjected to examination in PF No.269/2012 which is got marked at exhibit P.10. FSL report has been got marked at Ex.P12 and PW.10 being doctor has issued FSL 14 report at Ex.P12 and also subscribed signature of PW.9 inclusive of signature of PW.10 in respect of Ex.P13(a), Ex.P12(b) and Ex.P12(c). But PW.2 being victim and who is witness and whereby she was alleged to be abducted by accused Nos.2 to 5 when she was alone in her house and then taken to Bengaluru and made her to stay in the house of accused No.2 and thereafter accused No.1 was secured and marriage of accused No.1 was performed with PW.2 and thereafter, accused No.1 alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on victim girl. Though these allegations are made against the accused, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of accused. But FSL report issued by PW.10 indicates that there are 11 items for chemical examination having sent by investigating agency and whereby subjected to examination for chemical analysis and issued report which got marked at Ex.P12 and his opinion regarding chemical analysis has been furnished but perusal of Ex.P12 reports about 11 items which had been sent by 15 investigating agency for chemical analysis, but the opinion has been expressed by PW.10 / Dr. Chandrashekar that seminal stains or presence of spermatozoa were not detected in respect of items 3 to 10. On perusal of Ex.P12 chemical analysis report, and trial Court finds that totally MO.1 to 11 have been sent for chemical examination and as per opinion of PW.10 who has given a description of the items which is stated in impugned judgment of the acquittal revealing that seminal stain was not detected in item Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The presence of spermatozoa was not detected in item No.11 but blood in item No.1 and 2 was disintegrated. In Ex.P12 aforesaid items in all 11 had been sent to the chemical analysis but on a reading of the opinion by the trial Court it indicates that there is nothing to believe that item Nos.3 to 10 contained any seminal stain and item No.11 had no presence of spermatozoa, which is against the prosecution theory and hence failed to prove the guilt of the accused that Accused No.1 had committed rape on victim PW.2. 16 The second limb of the argument has been advanced by the aforesaid counsel for the accused by referring to the evidence of PW.4, 8 and 9. But PW.4 being a lady constable and based upon the direction issued by the PSI that she has taken the victim for medical examination to the Doctor in Channapatna Government Hospital and whereby victim has been taken by her and produced before the Doctor who is examined as PW.6 and accordingly medical examination of the victim was got done on 04.08.2012. The victim has been subjected to examination by the doctor PW.6 and even in her cross-examination she has specifically stated that PSI had taken her to Rajeshwarinagara and Kenchanahalli to secure the presence of the victim and the said PW-4 was not able to give details and particulars of the house. PW-4 is the only witness to speak about the circumstances under which PW.2 - victim was taken to hospital for medical examination to evidence the fact that Accused No.1 had committed rape on the victim. Keeping in view the 17 evidence of PWs.1 and 2, PW.2 being the victim and PW.1 who is the foster father of victim, it is seen that their evidence are not corroborated with each other to establish the guilt of the accused.
9. Though prosecution has facilitated several citations, it is relevant to refer to the cases of:
(i) Kamaraj Vs. Manikam reported in 2013(1) Crimes 235 (Madras),
(ii) State of Assam Vs. Sajindur Rashid reported in 2015(2) Crimes (Gauhati)
(iii) Dinesh Kumar Vs. State reported in 2015(2) Crimes (Delhi).
These are the citations which have been facilitated by the prosecution to support its case. Further, the citation in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1639 between Uday Vs. State of Karnataka relating to burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence absence of the consent being one of them. Similarly several decisions 18 were also produced by the prosecution. But the discussion has been made keeping in view the evidence of PW.1 who is the author of the complaint and based upon his complaint criminal law was set into motion and thereafter investigating officer has taken up the case and thoroughly investigated the case and secured material evidence and laid the charge sheet against the accused. But the entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. But absolutely there are no material evidence facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
10. Firstly, the prosecution even though subjected to examination several witnesses, there is no evidence to establish that the victim - PW.2 was a minor as on alleged date i.e. on 07.07.2012. Consequently, the circumstance that she was abducted by the accused is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Primarily, main offence alleged under Section 376 of IPC is against Accused No.1 19 and offences against accused Nos.2 to 5 are that they had abducted the victim - PW.2 and thereafter secured accused No.1 and conducted her marriage with accused No.1 and at knife point accused No.1 has committed sexual intercourse on victim girl. But there is no worthwhile evidence facilitated by the prosecution and moreover there are no ingredients to prove the offence under Section 376 of IPC. These are all the evidence which has been assessed by the trial Court and also appreciated in a proper perspective. Keeping in view the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 inclusive of the evidence relating to the Doctor and even FSL authority as regards the age factor of the victim, evidence of PW.5 - Nathegowda who is head master, but prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But the theory has been set up by the prosecution to frame the accused but main offence and also main allegation is made against accused No.1 who is alleged to have committed rape on the victim and that accused Nos.2 to 5 are alleged to have 20 abducted PW.2 from her house while she was alone. Accused No.1 died during the pendency of this appeal and accordingly case against him stands abated vide order dated 04.01.2022. There is no specific role in respect of remaining respondents arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 and more so, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. On all these premise, learned counsel Shri. Syed Akbar Pasha prays to dismiss this appeal and thereby confirm the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.05/2013.
11. Whereas, this appeal is filed challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court relating to the offences punishable under Sections 344, 366A, 376, 368, 506 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. But the abduction of the victim PW.2 had taken place on 07.07.2012 at around 6.30 p.m. while the victim was alone in the house of PW.1 - Devaraju who is none other than her foster father. When she was a child, she was taken 21 care of by PW.1 and she was brought up by him who made her study in school. But on that fateful day, accused Nos.2 to 4 are alleged to have abducted her while she was in her house alone and took her in an auto- rickshaw forcibly to Nidaghatta and thereafter accused No.5 - Harsha joined them and victim was taken from there to Bengaluru and made her to stay in the house of accused No.2 situated in Kengeri. Subsequently, co-accused Nos.2 to 5 secured accused No.1 and forcibly performed her marriage with accused No.1 and sent her with him. It is the theory of the prosecution that subsequent to her marriage with Accused No.1, from 07.07.2012 till 03.08.2012 accused No.1 is alleged to have committed rape on the victim. But PW.2 has also stated in her evidence that one Raghu is the person who took her from the house on that fateful day and further admitted that she has no acquaintance with him and he was not a close relative of her. Inspite of that she claimed that Raghu's natural mother was not keeping well. Therefore, she went 22 with Raghu. Whereas in evidence it reveals that even in Kenchenahalli when they were residing in the house, neighboureres were also living around. There was sufficient opportunity to the victim - PW.2 to meet them and also narrate in respect of the alleged incident that she has been abducted by the accused persons and also she could have sought some help to make a phone call to her family or house or even narrated the story that she has been abducted by accused Nos.2 to 5. But in her evidence, PW-2 has admitted that she has not made any phone call through any neighbourer in Kenchenahalli village and she did not inform them relating to the abduction by accused Nos.2 to 5 and thereafter securing accused No.1 and about performing her marriage with him. Ex.D1 is the contradictory statement got marked during her evidence. She has specifically stated that she has not given the same before the investigating officer. Subsequently got marked at Ex.D1. Even on a perusal of the contents of the Ex.D1 of the contradictory statement relating to the narration of the 23 theory of the prosecution when compared to the evidence of PW.1 - Devaraju who is the foster father of PW.2 and the complaint at Ex.P1, it appears to be contrary to each other. But the victim was introduced to the first accused by accused No.2 - Jyothi and the said Jyothi forced the accused to fell in love and she has instigated them to have friendly talks over mobile as per the statement Ex.D1. It is as if the victim having some talking affairs with the accused No.1 prior to the incident and they fell in love with each other. But evidence of PWs.1 and 2 on the part of the prosecution reveals that the 1st accused was making phone calls to the victim and that the accused No.1 was in love with the victim. But evidence of PW.1 in respect of contents of Ex.P1 whereby based upon that criminal law was set into motion but in the examination chief on the part of prosecution even taking into consideration that it was 5th accused - Harsha who had fell in love with the victim. Thereafter the entire story on part of the prosecution is found to be contrary and even in the cross- 24 examination of PWs.1 and 2 when compared coupled with Ex.D1, there are clouds of doubt in the theory of the prosecution keeping in view the evidence of PW.1 - Devaraju the author of the complaint and PW.2 victim girl and whereby she was alone in the house of PW.1 on the said fateful day when she was abducted by accused Nos.2 to 5. PW.2 has not disclosed any marks having occurred on her alleging that accused No.1 committed sexual intercourse. But she admitted that there were no marks of resistance on her body though accused No.1 is alleged to have had forcible sexual intercourse with her. According to the theory of the prosecution, it is clearly contrary in respect of the evidence of PW.1 and PW2. Hence, naturally doubt arises on the part of the prosecution and entire theory has been put forth in order to rope the accused in a heinous offence. By looking into the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it clearly indicates that they did not know any detail about the 1st accused alleging that he committed rape on the victim girl. PW.8 being PSI had been subjected to 25 examination on the part of the prosecution and he being the investigating officer in part and he took up the further investigation of the case on 08.07.2012 from the head constable No.89. On the same day, PW.8 is alleged to have visited the place of the incident and conducted spot mahazar at Ex.P1 in presence of panch witnesses and whereby subscribing their signatures. PW.7 is his statement even though it was recorded by the investigating officer during the course investigation if it is the evidence that he took place to tracing of the accused and also conducted mahazar by taking victim to the scene of crime and drew mahazar at Ex.P2 and sent the victim for medical examination to the doctor and accused No.1 was apprehended and produced before the Court of law even obtaining school records from head master - PW.5 and recorded the statement of witnesses and further investigation was given to the Circle Inspector of Police. But the entire case of the prosecution that Mangalasuthra was tied to the neck of the victim in temple, that 26 Mangalasuthra was not seized by the investigating officer during the course of the investigation. Nothing has been mentioned in any of the mahazar marked in the prosecution case even the priest in the temple was subjected as witness to prove the aforesaid theory.
12. However, keeping in view the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also evidence of PWs.8, 9 and 10, it is relevant to refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1989 SC 2134 of Lalith Kumar Sharma vs. Superintendent and Remembrencer of Legal affairs, State of West Bengal, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed issues relating to power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
27
13. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it has extensively addressed the issues insofar as Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and so also, circumstantial evidence and even benefit of doubt in detail. In para 162 it is held as under:
"Moreover, in M.G.agarwal case this Court while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant case observed thus:
If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
In Shankarlal this Court reiterated the same view thus : [ SCC para 31, p.44: SCC (Cri) p. 322] In para 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one 28 which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh,(l) this Court made the following observations:
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence."
These are all the reliances which are required to be considered in facts and circumstances of the case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence.
14. It is relevant to refer to the concept of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the judgment of RAJA vs. STATE (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del), it is well-known principles of law that reliance can be based on even a 29 solitary statement of a witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is true and also correct version of the case of the prosecution. However, quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on a statement. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs. KISHANPAL (2008 (8) JT 650) : 2008 (11) SCALE 233 .
15. Whereas in the instant case, the Trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence facilitated by the prosecution. But the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW-1 / Devaraju and also the evidence of PW-2 victim girl inclusive of the evidence of PW-5 / Nathegowda, the Headmaster who was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution to prove the age of the victim girl and produced her school certificates and PW-6 / Dr. Suma who had examined the victim girl and PW-7 / Dr. 30 Basavaiah and PW-10 / Dr. Chandrashekar being the FSL authority. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, absolutely there are no material to prove that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Even as regards the main offence of Section 376 of the IPC and even as regards the offences of abduction said to have been committed by the co-accused Nos.2 to 5, there are no ingredients to attract the offences and the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to secure conviction. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 has been appreciated by the Trial Court in a proper perspective and thereafter the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Therefore, in this appeal, it does not arise to call for any interference and there is no warranting circumstances emerging even for re- visiting the impugned judgment of acquittal or re- appreciation of the evidence. The entire evidence facilitated by the prosecution is not found to be worthwhile and there is no perversity in the acquittal judgment of the 31 Trial court and the same does not arise to call for interference in view of the grounds urged. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the appeal appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in S.C.No.5/2013 dated 02.11.2015 is hereby confirmed.
If any bail bond has been executed by Appellant Nos. 2 to 5 / Accused Nos.2 to 5, the same shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE RJ/KS