Obalesha @ Ranga vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 5712 Kant

                           1
                                                  R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1137 OF         2011

BETWEEN:
Obalesha @ Ranga
S/o Poojappa
Aged about 24 years
R/at No.17, III-Cross
'B' Block
Sumangali Sevashrama Road
Kunthi Grama, Hebbala
Bangalroe.
                                            ...Appellant
(By Sri. A.N. Radhakrishna - Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka
By R.T. Nagar Police
Rep. by The State Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings
Bangalore.
                                          ...Respondent

(By Sri. Rahul Rai K - HCGP)

     This Criminal Appeal filed under Sec.374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the
appellant praying to set aside the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Presiding Officer,
                                   2


Fast Track Sessions Court-XVI, Bangalore City, in
S.C.No.305/2011, dated 21/29.10.2011

      This criminal appeal coming on for hearing this
day, the court delivered the following:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial

Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011 and

whereby convicted the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860.

2. Whereas, this appeal is filed seeking to set aside

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused for

the aforesaid offence amongst the grounds urged

therein.

3. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.N.Radha Krishna

for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP for the

State.

4. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in

S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011.

5. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under :

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that

on 10.11.2010 at around 7.00 p.m, PW.6 - Kum.Preethi

who is the victim girl had been to the house of PW.4 -

Smt.G.Selva who is aged about 75 years being tuition

teacher and after attending tuition class in her house in

the limits of Munisamappa Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru

City while she was returning to the house that the

accused alleged to having intention to marry her,

abducted her from there and made her to confinement

in house of one Venkatesh who is his friend. In

pursuance of the act of the accused on filing the

complaint by PW.5 - Lokesh as per Ex.P4, criminal law

was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5 by

PW.9 - Puttalakkaiah who is working as ASI in

R.T.Nagar Police Station. Subsequent to registration of

crime, PW.13 - Mahadevaswamy who is the

investigating officer took up the case for investigation

and thoroughly investigated the case and during

investigation, he drew mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the

presence of PW.1 - Venkatesh and PW.3 - Muniraju and

so also drew mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.4

- Smt.G.Selva and PW.5 - Lokesh.

6. Subsequent to completion of investigation by

PW.13 being the investigating officer and he had laid the

charge sheet against the accused before the committal

Court and case has been committed by the committal

Court by passing committal order by complying the

provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C.

Subsequent to the committal of the case by committal

Court to the trial Court, case was registered against the

accused in S.C.No.305/2011.

7. After committal of case by the committal Court

that the trial Court heard on the part of prosecution and

defence counsel relating to framing of charges and

consequently framed charges against the accused for

the offences under Sections 506, 366 and 342 of IPC

and whereby the accused declined the charges leveled

against him. Subsequent to framing of charges that the

case was put up for trial and accordingly, prosecution

has examined in all PWs.1 to 13 and got marked

documents at Exs.P1 to 9 and closed its side.

8. Subsequent to closure of evidence of

prosecution, the accused were subjected to examination

as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating

statement appeared against him, whereby the accused

declined the truth of evidence of prosecution adduced so

far. After recording 313 statement of the accused, the

accused did not come forward to adduce any defence

evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.

Subsequent to completion of the evidence of the

prosecution and on hearing the arguments advanced by

the prosecution and defence counsel the trial Court

having convinced by the evidence held conviction for the

offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC.

It is this judgment which has been challenged under

this appeal by urging various grounds.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the

course of his argument has taken me through the

evidence of PW.1 - Venkatesh and PW.3 - Muniraju who

are the panch witnesses secured by PW.13, being the

investigating officer who drew the mahazar at Exs.P1 at

the house of one Venkatesh where the accused alleged

to have confined the victim girl - in his house. But the

aforesaid PW.1 and PW.3 did not supported the case of

the prosecution relating to fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P1.

But the same has not been appreciated by the trial

Court and even the prosecution did not prove the guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt relating to

the fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P1 which was

conducted by PW.13 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and

so also mahazar at Ex.P3 which was conducted by

PW.13 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5.

10. PW.2 - Parashurama has been subjected to

examination on part of the prosecution relating to

abduction of PW.6 - Kum. Preethi for the purpose of

marriage as alleged. But PW.6 did not supported the

case of prosecution absolutely relating to the allegation

made in Ex.P4 of the complaint made by her father and

so also fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P1 and Ex.P3.

But PW.2 has been subjected to examination on part of

prosecution and got marked his contradictory statement

at Ex.P2. The aforesaid evidence even though has been

facilitated by the prosecution, but the trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective manner.

Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation

of the evidence, if not, the accused who is the gravamen

of the accusation would be the sufferer and also there

shall be a miscarriage of justice.

11. The primary ground of the argument urged by

the learned counsel even referring to the evidence of

PW.6 - Kum. Preethi who is the victim girl and alleged

that she was subjected to medical examination by

PW.12 - Dr. B.M.Nagaraj at Dr. B.R Ambedkar Medical

Hospital at Bengaluru and he had issued medical report

of the victim PW.6 as per Ex.P6 and so also medically

examined the accused and issued medical report at

Ex.P7. These reports have been secured by PW.13 -

Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against

the accused. The investigating officer who subjected

requisition to PW.12 - doctor at Exs.P8 and 9. This

requisition also got marked on the part of prosecution.

Mere because got marked that requisition made by the

investigating officer, it cannot be said that contents in

the requisition and also contents in the medical report

of the victim at Ex.P6 and also medical report of the

accused at Ex.P7 which are established by the

prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. PW.6

who is the victim and she was subjected to examination

by PW.12 being doctor and she has specifically stated in

her evidence that she, herself went with the accused

Ranga @ Oblesha S/o Poojappa. But her evidence is

quite contrary to the evidence of the medical report at

Ex.P6. Further contradictory to the evidence of PW.5 -

complainant who filed the complaint as per Ex.P4

alleging that accused subjected his daughter PW.6 -

Kum. Preethi for abduction with an intention to get

marry and also made confinement of his minor

daughter by inducing her. PW.6, being the victim girl

has given evidence on the part of the prosecution and

also she has been subjected to medical examination by

PW.12 - Doctor and whereby issued medical report as

per Ex.P6. But entire case of the prosecution even seen

at cursory glance that the accused intentionally roped

for marrying the victim girl who is examined as PW.6. It

is found to be doubtful theory of the prosecution, but

even on that count alone the trial Court acquitted the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 366

relating to abduction and Section 342 relating to

confinement. This vital evidence has not been

considered by the trial Court and also not appreciated

in proper perspective manner but misdirected and also

misinterpreted and erroneously came to the conclusion

that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

with beyond all reasonable doubt. On these premises,

learned counsel for the appellant submits for

consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal

and seeks for acquittal of the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 342 of IPC, 1860.

12. In support of his contention, counsel for the

appellant has placed reliance of a judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 966 - State of

Karnataka Vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral wherein it is

held as under:

Section 376 - Rape - Victim alleged to be below 16 years - Evidence regarding age, not very convincing - Statement of victim before police as well as during cross-examination that accused did something to her which he ought not to have done. What exactly accused did, could not be elicited no other evidence to corroborate her testimony, it cannot be inferred that accused had intercourse with her.

Section 366 of IPC, 1860 - Age of victim doubtful - Question of taking her away from lawful guardianship does not arise. Moreso, when victim herself deposed that she went with accused voluntarily.

13. But in the instant case, oblesha @ Ranga and

victim who was examined as PW.6 has been acquainted

to each other. Of course, because of the acquaintance

accused abducted victim with an intention to marry and

also made her confinement in the house of one

Venkatesh cannot be an acceptable evidence for

conviction. The aforesaid reliances are squarely

applicable to the present case as this contention made

by the learned counsel for the appellant for

consideration.

In AIR 2006 SCC 2461 - Gabbu Vs. State of M.P.,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

Sections 366 and 506 of IPC relating to Abduction and criminal intimidation - proof - Allegations that accused appellant along with other accused at point of a weapon gave threats to prosecutrix and abducted her against her wishes - Evidence of prosecutrix that accused persons entered in her house where she was sleeping with her husband who woke up due to commotion and yet they forcibly took her - Is not consistent with story of prosecution as alleged in FIR - Delay in lodging FIR evidence of prosecutrix not showing that accused had abduction her with intention to forcibly marry her against her will or that she may be forced to illicit intercourse - Place of incident and motive of accused in taking away prosecturix under a

threat is doubtful conviction of accused persons, not proper.

14. In the instant case, PW.6 - Kum. Preethi who

is the victim was subjected to examination on part of

prosecution but she has not spelt about forcible

abduction by the accused and allegation made in the

complaint filed by her father PW.5 who has been

subjected to examination on part of prosecution and

also got marked as Ex.P.4 and only complaint has been

made by her father on suspicion about the accused was

not found in his house and some enquiry was made and

later came to know that she was in confinement of the

house of one Venkatesh who is his friend. But at the

cursory glance of evidence of PW.5 and evidence relating

to the allegation made at Ex.P4 and even fulcrum of the

mahazar at Ex.P1 which was conducted by PW.13 in the

presence of PWs.1 and 3 and another mahazar at Ex.P3

which was conducted in the presence of PWs.4 and 5,

but it is not a worthwhile and clinching evidence. The

counsel for the appellant has taken me through the

evidence of these witnesses on part of prosecution and it

appears to be clouds of doubt with the theory and the

benefit of doubt should always be extended to the

accused alone and even possible doubt would arise on

part of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has also to

be held in favour of the accused in the criminal justice

delivery system.

15. In the instance case, trial Court has rendered

acquittal judgment relating to offence under Section 506

but held conviction under Sections 366, 342 of IPC.

But all these offences are relating to each other for

abduction of PW.6 who is victim girl. But the trial Court

has lost its sight for appreciation of the material

witnesses of PWs.4, 5 and 6 coupled with the evidence

of PW.13 being the investigating officer who laid the

charge sheet against the accused. On all these premises

learned counsel contends and also submits by referring

the evidence of those witnesses for consideration of the

grounds that urged under this appeal and intervention

certainly requires in this appeal because accused who is

appellant before this Court would be the sufferer and

also there will be miscarriage of justice. On all these

grounds and also submission made by the learned

counsel for the appellant seeking to allow the appeal

and set aside the conviction judgment rendered in

S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011. Consequent upon

setting aside the conviction judgment to acquit the

accused for the offences under Section 366, 342 of IPC.

16. On controvert to the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP for

the State has taken me through the evidence of PW.6

who is victim aged about 13 to 14 years as per evidence

of PW.12 - Dr.B.M Nagaraj who issued medical report of

the victim as per Ex.P6 relating to victim girl who is

minor. But accused abducted victim girl with an

intention to marry her and made her confinement. Her

evidence has been found corroborate with the evidence

of her father PW.5 - Lokesh, PW.7 - Smt.Sowbhagya

who is her mother and PW.8 - Shivashankar who is her

uncle and they have stated in their evidence relating to

missing of PW.6 - Kum.Preethi and she did not return

to her house even after attending tuition class in the

house of Pw.4 - Smt.G. Selva who is her tuition teacher.

On 10.10.2010, victim girl PW.6 had been abducted by

the accused Obalesha @ Ranga. In pursuance with the

abduction made by the accused and also in pursuance

of the allegation made in the complaint of PW.5 and

even ascertainment by him whether the accused was

present in his house or not and thereafter only criminal

law was set into motion by filing the complaint at Ex.P4

and the said complaint was received by PW.9 -

Puttalakkaiah who is the ASI and based upon the

complaint FIR has been recorded as per Ex.P5.

Subsequent to initiation of the criminal case against the

accused by recording an FIR, PW.13 being the

investigating officer who took up the case and

investigated the case thoroughly and laid the

charge-sheet. During the course of investigation he drew

the mahazar at Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3

and also another mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of

PWs.4 and 5 and laid the charge sheet against the

accused. Medical report of victim as per Ex.P6 and

medical report of accused as per Ex.P7 the evidence of

PWs.5, 7 and 8 are in conformity with the evidence of

PW.6 - Kum. Preethi who was minor at the time of

abduction made by the accused. But Ex.P4 is the

complaint made by her father PW.5 who was subjected

to examination and wherein he has stated that the

accused used to come near their house and he was

talking with victim girl - PW.6. Because of talking

terms, the acquaintance was developed in between them

and then only the accused made abduction of her.

However, for talking terms in between the accused and

victim girl, her parents did not made any sort of

objection to their daughter. This evidence finds place

on the part of the prosecution and even subjected to

examination of PWs.5, 7 and 8 and they are the material

witnesses and even they are family members that too be

the parents and uncle and they have stated in their

evidence which is in conformity with the allegation

made against the accused in the complaint filed by

PW.5 as per Ex.P4, the same has been considered by

the trial court. Therefore, it cannot arise for

intervention.

17. It is further contended that Ex.P1 is the

mahazar which was drawn by PW.13 in the presence of

PWs.1 and 3 where the victim was confined by the

accused in the house of one Venkatesh situated in

Halanayakanahalli in the limit of HSR Layout,

Bengaluru city. Of course, the aforesaid Venkatesh was

not subjected to examination on part of prosecution to

prove the case, but PWs.1 and 3 are panch witnesses

subjected to mahazar in their presence by PW.13.

These two witnesses have not withstood the fulcrum of

mahazar. Mere because they did not support to the

prosecution, it cannot be arise for brush aside the

evidence of PW.13 being the investigating officer who

conducted mahazar at Exs.P1 in the presence of PW.4 -

G. Selva who is tuition teacher and whereby the victim

was going to her house for attending tuition class and

their evidence are suffice. PW.5 namely Lokesh who has

subscribed his signature at Ex.P3 and this mahazar was

also drawn by PW.13 being the investigating officer who

laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore,

evidence of PW.13 is suffice to held on the part of

prosecution to prove the fulcrum of mahazar and where

this witness has subscribed his signature. Venkatesh

who is friend of the accused and they were working in

BBMP. However, these are all the evidence which are

placed on part of the prosecution and same has been

appreciated by the trial court and has rightly come to

conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of

the accused, that he had abducted the victim girl PW.6

from near the house of PW.4 - Smt. G Selva and PW.4

had supported the case of prosecution and nothing has

been elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve the

evidence of prosecution. But PW.5 - Lokesh who is

father of victim was also subjected to examination and

in his presence Ex.P3 mahazar has been drawn and he

also subscribed his signature and their evidence are

found to be corroborated with the evidence of PW.13

being the investigating officer and the same has been

considered and also appreciated by the trial court as

contended.

18. Lastly, learned HCGP for the State has

contended and concentrated relating to Ex.P6 medical

certificate issued by PW.12 being doctor and also

medical report at Ex.P7 relating to the accused. PW.12

has been subjected to examination on the part of the

prosecution and he has spoken in his evidence for

having subjected to examination PW.6 victim namely

Preethi and accused - Obalesha @ Ranga and also

subjected to physical examination and X-ray of victim

PW.6 who was taken to ascertain her age. Based upon

her medical examination her age is about 13 to 14 years

and accused was about 24 years. PW.13 who is the

investigating officer has taken the Xerox copies of the

transfer certificate relating to the victim girl who was

examined as PW.6. But in the transfer certificate of the

victim indicates her date of birth as 06.02.1998.

Therefore, her age as on the date of incident narrated in

the complaint at Ex.P4 which was filed by her father -

PW.5 is about 12 years 9 months. Therefore, medical

report at Ex.P6 issued by PW.12 - doctor clearly

indicates the age of victim girl - PW.6 and that she is

aged about 13 and 14 years. Even nothing found place

on the record to disbelieve the contents at Ex.P6

medical certificate issued by PW.12 who is the Doctor

who examined victim and also accused as per Ex.P7.

These are all the evidence has been appreciated by the

trial Court and arrived at a conclusion that the

prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused

with beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, under this

appeal there is no warranting circumstances that arise

for re-appreciation of the evidence for intervention.

Therefore, seeks for dismissal of this appeal being

devoid of merits.

19. It is in this context of the contention made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and also the

counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for

the State, but it requires to see that, the trial court

framed charge against the accused under Section 506

IPC, 1860 relating to criminal intimidation of the victim

girl PW.6 - Kum. Preethi by the accused. However,

PW.6 has been subjected to examination on the part of

prosecution but she did not spell in her evidence that

accused had extended some sort of criminal

intimidation to her if she did not marry him would face

dire consequence in her life and consequently, acquitted

the accused in respect of criminal intimidation.

20. PW.7 - Smt.Sowbhagya is none other than the

mother of the victim and PW.8 - Shivashankar is none

other than uncle of the victim and they are the

witnesses on the part of the prosecution and even they

have been subjected to cross-examination and on close

scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 coupled with

evidence of PW.5 - Lokesh who is the father of victim

PW.6 - Kum. Preethi aged about 13 to 14 years and the

evidence of PW.4 - Smt.G. Selva, aged about 75 years

being the tuition teacher and where the victim was

going to her house to attend tuition classes. But on

10.11.2010, victim girl alleged to have abducted by the

accused as narrated in the complaint at Ex.P4 filed by

PW.5 and this complaint was received by PW.9 -

Puttalakkaiah who was working as ASI in R.T.Nagar

Police Station and based upon the complaint criminal

law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5

by the police having jurisdiction. Thereafter,

investigating officer took up the case for investigation

and thoroughly investigated the case and drew mahazar

at Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and even drew

another mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs.4

and 5, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile

evidence on each of the charges in respect of the

ingredients.

21. But on close scrutiny of the aforesaid

witnesses on the part of the prosecution which were

running contrary to the evidence of PW.13 who drew the

mahazar at Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. PW.2 namely -

Parashurama has been subjected to examination on the

part of prosecution but he did not support the case of

the prosecution and his contrary statement has been

got marked at Ex.P2, which creates some doubt about

the theory put forth by the prosecution. Whereas, PW.6

- Kum. Preethi who is victim girl and she has been

subjected to examination on the part of prosecution but

she did not spell in her evidence that the accused had

extended some sort of criminal intimidation that if she

denies to marry him, would face dire consequence.

Based upon the evidence of PW.6 and so also, evidence

of PWs.7 and 8 trial Court had arrived at a conclusion

that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of

the accused under Section 506 of IPC, but arrived at a

conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of

the accused under Section 342 relating to confinement

and Section 366 relating to abduction from the lawful

guardian, even though there is no clinching evidence for

conviction.

22. But the ingredients of the abduction of the

victim girl made by the accused who is aged about 13 to

14 years as on 10.11.2010 at around 7 p.m. and

whereby the victim was attending tuition class in the

house of PW.4- Smt.G Selva and had returned to her

house alleging that this accused had abducted her in

auto rickshaw and made confinement in the house of

Venkatesh situated in Halanayakanahalli in the limits of

H.S.R Layout, Bengaluru city. But strangely aforesaid

Venkatesh who is none other than friend of the accused

was not subjected to examination on the part of

prosecution relating to elicit the truth of evidence on

the part of prosecution for confinement. But arrived at a

conclusion that the accused had extended some sort of

activities on the victim girl - PW.6 who is aged about 13

to 14 years. There is no eyewitness on the part of

prosecution even for abduction of victim girl - PW.6, but

the trial Court has given more credentiality and also

relied on the evidence of PWs.4, 5, 7 and 8 inclusive of

PW.6 who is the victim girl even though the entire case

rests upon the circumstantial evidence. However, there

are some contradictions and also omissions which were

found in the evidence of PW.6 - Kum. Preethi who is the

prime witness and also material evidence on the part of

the prosecution, which runs contrary to the evidence of

her parents PW.5 - Lokesh, PW.7 - Smt.Sowbhagya and

PW.8 - Shivashankar who is her uncle. PW.6 has been

subjected to examination on the part of prosecution and

she has specifically stated in her evidence that she was

talking with the accused - Obalesha @ Ranga.

Therefore, accused and victim girl are known to each

other, but this acquaintance is not sufficient to convict

the accused. But there are no eyewitness found on the

part of prosecution relating to abducting victim girl as

on 10.11.2010 and there is no clinching evidence.

23. However, criminal law was set into motion by

recording FIR as per Ex.P5. But PW.5 has been

subjected to examination and he has stated in his

evidence that he went near the house of the accused

and ascertained whether the accused was present in his

house, when he went near the house of the accused and

made some enquiry with the wife of the accused and

there was some sort of exchange of words took in

between wife of the accused and PW.5 - Lokesh who is

none other than father of the victim girl and then only

he has filed complaint as per Ex.P4. But at a cursory

glance of evidence of PW.5 - Lokesh with evidence of

PW.6 - victim girl coupled with the evidence of PW.4 -

G. Selva everyday in between 4.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m,

she used to attend tuition class. But, on 10.11.2010 at

around 7.00 p.m, PW.6 had been to attend her tuition

class in the house of PW.4 - G.Selva. While returning

from his house to her house that the accused alleged to

have abducted her and made her to confinement in the

house of one Venkatesh who is his friend and also

accused informed him that he is going to marry the

victim girl. But she refused to marry the accused. This

thing is required to be established by the prosecution

only by securing Venkatesh who is friend of the accused

for having subjected to examination and so also to prove

the said facts. But on 14.11.2010 accused brought the

victim girl - PW.6 to R.T.Nagar Police Station and on the

way from Aaloor to Hebbal, the accused purchased a

bottle and he consumed the liquid near the bakery and

went upstairs. Later accused represented her that he

has consumed poison while coming on the way to the

police station and after consuming poison he vomited

and he was taken to the hospital by his friend

Venkatesh and he brought victim girl PW.6 to the police

Station. These are all the evidence on the part of

prosecution and it should be elicited by the prosecution

by subjecting to examination of Venkatesh who is friend

of the accused, but this witness has not been secured

by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid

correspondence of victim PW.6 who was made

confinement in the house of Venkatesh who is none

other than the friend of the accused. But the vital

witness C.W.5 - Venkatesh was not subjected to

examination on the part of prosecution that the accused

wrongfully confined her in the house of Venkatesh and

PW.6 - Kum. Preethi who was said to be missing from

the lawful guardian from 10.11.2010 to 14.11.2010 for

the period of almost 4 days. However, prosecution has

not been putting forth the worthwhile evidence to prove

the confinement and PW.6 in the house of CW.5-

Venkatesh and forced the victim girl to marry him i.e.,

accused.

24. 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 that it to

exist, or 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.'

25. 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.

26. 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. Accused person cannot be convicted

solely on the evidence of acquainted to each other i.e.,

victim and the accused.

27. Further, it is relevant to refer to 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. It is well-known principle of law that reliance

can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if

the court comes to the conclusion that the said

statement is the true and correct version of the case of

the prosecution. Therefore, the domain is vested with

the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by

facilitating worthwhile evidence, which should not give

any room for doubt in the theory put forth by the

prosecution for convicting the accused.

28. Whereas, it is the quality of evidence and not

the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged

by the court to place credence on the statements of

witnesses and material evidence facilitated, in order to

prove the guilt of the accused. But the plurality of

witnesses in the matter of appreciation of evidence of

witnesses is the domain vested with the Trial Court

alone. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality

of their evidence which is an 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 evidence must be weighed and not

counted. Further, the test is whether the evidence has

a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or

otherwise. Whereas the legal system has laid emphasis

on value provided by each witness, rather than the

multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is the quality

and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of

evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it is said that the

domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt

of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. If

worthwhile evidence is not produced and doubt arises in

the case put forth by the prosecution, it is well-settled

principles of law in criminal justice delivery system that

benefit of doubt is always in favour of the accused

alone.

29. The appellant had been convicted by the trial

Court relating to wrongful confinement of PW.6, victim

girl. The wrongful confinement is that the accused

should have wrongfully confined the victim. This is the

essential ingredients of the offence and such restraint

was to prevent the victim from proceeding beyond

certain circumscribed limits. But PW.6 - victim had

been confined in the house of CW. 5 - Venkatesh who is

no other than the friend of the accused. But the said

Venkatesh was not examined on the part of the

prosecution as where the victim was confined in his

house. But no stretch of logic or reason can be the

justification for causing some wrongful restraint made

by the accused with an intention to have marriage with

the victim. But the trial Court was rendering acquittal

judgment relating to offence under Section 506 of IPC.

But both the offences are relating to confinement of

victim - PW.6 who was subjected to examination on the

part of the prosecution. But she did not supported the

case of prosecution relating to extending criminal

intimidation on her by the accused. The essential

ingredients relating to confinement are required to be

established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile

evidence even for having examined PW.4, PW.5, PW.6

and PW.8 who are material witnesses on the part of the

prosecution. But prosecution has failed to prove the

guilt of the offences relating to wrongful confinement of

the victim girl. Therefore, under this appeal, it requires

for re-appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid

witnesses, if not, the accused would be the sufferer and

there shall some miscarriage of justice.

30. Insofar as the offence under Section 366 of

IPC, 1860 relating to kidnapping / abducting the victim

girl by inducing her to compel marriage with him. But

the essential ingredients of the offences is that a person

being an accused abducts victim and she may be

compelled to marry a person of an accused. But the

victim who is examined as PW.6 and she was enticed

away from her lawful guardian. But the essence insofar

as the aforesaid offences, it must be the compulsion and

it was with the idea of the accused getting married with

her. But the prosecution has failed to put forth the case

in respect of the ingredients of the said offences of

abduction by inducing the victim girl in order to get

married with him. But the principles that have to be

borne in mind by the trial Courts when considering the

evidence on the part of the prosecution. But as a rule of

prudence, it has been emphasized that the trial Court

should normally looking for some absolute

corroboration of victim's testimony in order to satisfy

itself that the victim is saying the truthful acts of the

accused in respect of abduction. But in the instant

case having gone through the aforesaid material

witnesses, it does not inspire the evidence and their

evidence is not supported by any independent evidence

on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, held that the

prosecution has not been able to prove its case against

the accused for abduction of victim girl and also

wrongful confinement of victim girl in the house of his

friend CW.5 - Venkatesh who is cited as witness in the

charge sheet. Therefore, under this appeal it requires

for intervention, if not, the accused who is the gravamen

of accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall

be miscarriage of justice as there is no justifiable reason

or sound reason assigned by the trial Court to arrive at

a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt

against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence.

31. In the instant case, the prosecution did not

facilitated the worthwhile evidence despite that the trial

Court has erroneously come to the conclusion and

misdirected the evidence and so also misinterpreted the

evidence which were facilitated by the prosecution. But

under this appeal, it requires for intervention in view of

warranting circumstances. If not, the accused who is

the gravamen of the accusation made against him

would be the sufferer. The domain vested with the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by

facilitating positive, cogent and corroborative evidence

to probabalise that the accused has committed the

alleged offence. Whereas, in the instant case, the

prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence to

prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 366 and

342 of IPC, 1860, even though several witnesses were

examined, but some clouds of doubt arise in the

evidence. Consequently it requires for intervention.

Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings it is

opined that the appeal deserves for consideration.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

ORDER

The appeal filed by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011 is hereby set aside.

Consequent upon setting aside the judgment of conviction, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860 for which charge has been leveled against him.

If any bail bond has been executed by the accused, the same shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE RJ