State Of Karnataka By vs Ravi C K
2022 Latest Caselaw 7630 Kant

                              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

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

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

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

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.

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 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

cancelled.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RJ/KS