Dismissed

State by Devaraja Police Station v. Srikantaprasad @ Changumani

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2022CRL.A/1549/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal preferred by the State against an acquittal, the High Court rejected the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment acquitting the accused of abduction, rape, and related charges for failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State was rejected, and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court was confirmed.

State by Devaraja Police Station Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR

¶10

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

STATE BY DEVARAJA POLICE STATION MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 1.

¶12

(BY SRI. ABHIJITH K.S. - HCGP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

SRIKANTAPRASAD @ CHANGUMANI @ CHANU,

¶16

S/O SHIVAMADAPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MALLAHALLI VILLAGE, HALEPURA POST, DODDAKAVALANDE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK - 571 301.

¶17

SMT. SUMA D/O. MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶18

¶19

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶20

HOUSE AT P. NARAYANAREDDY SEETHARAM PALYA BENGALURU.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NINGAPPA H - ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY – ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO; A) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 IN S.C.NO.270/2013 PASSED BY THE VI-ADDL. DIST. AND SPL. JUDGE, MYSORE ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 366 & 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3 R/W 4 OF POCSO ACT; B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.03.2016 IN S.C.NO.270/2013 PASSED BY THE VI-ADDL. DIST. AND SPL. JUDGE, MYSORE, BY ALLWOING THIS APPEAL; C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 366 & 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3 R/W 4 OF POCSO ACT.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘DICTATING JUDGMENT’ THIS DAY, K SOMASHEKAR .J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is preferred by the State whereby challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.270/2013 dated 28.03.2016 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 366 and 506 of IPC beside Section 3 r/w 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Whereas under this appeal seeking intervention by setting aside the impugned judgment and consequent upon setting aside the acquittal judgment to convict the accused for the offences for which he was charged, by considering the grounds urged in this appeal.

¶29

Heard learned HCGP for State and so also, counsel namely Sri A.Mahesh Chowdhary for respondent No.2 / complainant. Learned counsel Sri Ningappa H for respondent No.1 / accused is on record. Perused the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.270/2013 consisting the evidence of PWs.1 to 13 and documents as per Exs.P1 to P28 and inclusive of D-series documents as per Exs.D1 to 6.

¶30

¶31

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶32

The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

¶33

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 21.07.2013 at around 3.00 p.m. while CW.1 and 2 were proceeding by walk on Bengaluru – Neelagari Road to see palace in Mysuru City near Jayamarthanda Gate, at that point of time, accused Nos.1 to 3 came in Bajaj Discovery Vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA 09 ES 891 according to the conspiracy hatched in between them. But in another motorcycle with an intent to abduct CW.2, accused No.1 with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3, chided CW.1 by beating him with hands and knocked down and forcibly abducted CW.2 on motor bike and took her to Puttanapura village and kept her in the house of CW.7 who is relative of accused No.1. It is further transpired that accused No.1 committed sexual intercourse on CW.2 during night. Further, accused No.1 extended life threat to CW.2 saying that she will face dire consequences if she revealed the incident in terms of rape to any person. In pursuance of the said act of the accused on filing of complaint by the complainant as per

¶34

¶35

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶36

Ex.P2, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P22 relating to the offences which reflected in the FIR itself.

¶37

Subsequent to registration of the crime the

¶38

investigating officer took up the case for investigation and the entire investigation was carried by PW.13 – Kantharaju H.M. and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons before the Court having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Subsequently, on furnishing the charge sheet materials to the accused he engaged the services of counsel. Subsequently, heard on charge of learned Public Prosecutor and defense counsel and having found prima-facie materials, charges were framed against accused for the offences which reflected in the charge sheet column. The charges were read over to the accused in the language to him, but he did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequently, the prosecution let in evidence by subjecting to examination in all 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13

¶39

¶40

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶41

and got marked several documents as per Exs.P1 to P28 and so also, got marked D-series documents as per Exs.D1 to D6. Accordingly, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

¶42

Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling him to record the incriminating statement appearing against him. But the accused had declined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses adduced so far. Accordingly it was recorded. Thereafter, the accused was called upon to adduce defence evidence if any, as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. However, the accused was not inclined to lead any defence evidence.

¶43

Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also, the defense side, the trial Court heard arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for State and so also, counter arguments advanced by the defense counsel for the accused.

¶44

¶45

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶46

The trial Court was commanding upon the evidence

¶47

of PW.1. PW.1 is a victim and so also, having love affairs with accused No.1. But this PW.1 has given a goby to her version of the statement and her evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW.2 – Mallesha who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P2. Based upon his complaint criminal law was set into motion. But PW.3 – Suma is none other than the mother of victim, PW.4 – Nethravathi is the sister of PW.1 and PW.5 – Mahadevappa is none other than the father of the victim. PW.6 – Prabhu is the maternal uncle of PW.1 and he has turned around to the version of his statement. PW.7 – Kavya has also turned hostile. But the entire evidence has been appreciated by the trial court and given more concentration on the evidence of PW.1. But looking into the evidence of PW.2 who is the relative of PW.1 has given evidence even to the alleged incident as narrated in the complaint. But PW.1 – victim has left the company of her parents to avoid her marriage with PW.2 – Mallesha. But PW.2 in his evidence in chief examination stated that he

¶48

¶49

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶50

has not at all lodged complaint and one Prabhu – CW.6 who is the maternal uncle of PW.1 had lodged complaint. Further, PW.2 who stood for cross-examination and even after elicitation of his evidence in his cross-examination done by the public prosecutor stated that in the complaint his signature is there and writings in the complaint are not in his hand writing and his signature was taken by CW.6 – Prabhu while he was in his brother’s house at Vidyaranyapuram. But on close scrutiny of evidence of PW.1 who is victim girl and so also, PW.2 – Mallesha who is relative, it appears that there was love affairs in between accused No.1 and PW.1 victim. But looking into the entire evidence of PW.2 it is clear that there is delay in lodging complaint and said delay has not been properly explained. Even PW.2 was cross-examined at length, but nothing worthwhile was elicited to believe the theory of the prosecution that accused No.1 with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3 abducted PW.1 with an intention of having marriage with her. But it is pertinent to note that the mother of

¶51

¶52

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶53

victim girl – PW.3, PW.4 being the elder sister of PW.1, PW.5 who is the father of PW.1 and PW.6 who is the maternal uncle of PW.1 and brother of PW.3 all of them have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and they have not stated anything against accused No.1. Further nothing is elicited in their cross-examination by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused that he abducted PW.1 from the lawful possession of her parents. PW.11 is secured as panch witness to Ex.P1 – spot mahazar which conducted by the investigating agency near the house of CW.7. But he has also turned around to the case of prosecution case and in his cross-examination nothing is elicited to believe the theory of the prosecution.

¶54

PW.12 is the panch witness to Ex.P21 – seizure mahazar under which motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA 09 ES 891 was seized. But he also turned hostile to the case of prosecution relating to the contents of Ex.P21. The concept of abduction of PW.1 by accused No.1 with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3, has not been established by the

¶55

10 -

¶56

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶57

prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence to secure conviction relating to the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and so also, under the provisions of POCSO Act, 2012. Even the ingredients of each count of offence has not been elicited by the prosecution even though charge sheet has been laid by the investigating officer against the accused persons.

¶58

Lastly, the trial Court while referring to the evidence of PW.13 being the IO who registered the case based upon the complaint at Ex.P2 which filed by PW.2 and criminal law was set into motion and he investigated the case in entirety and after thorough investigation laid the charge sheet in compliance of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. inclusive of securing certain materials during the course of investigation. But looking into the entirety of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court had arrived at a conclusion and opined that the evidence of PW.13 will not help to the case of prosecution to arrive at a conclusion that accused No.1 abducted PW.1 from the lawful possession of

¶59

11 -

¶60

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶61

her parents while proceeding to see palace in the Mysuru City and also committed rape upon her in the house of CW.7, being a relative of Accused No.1.

¶62

PW.1 the victim girl had fell in love affairs with accused No.1 and it was in the knowledge of that PW.2 – Mallesha with whom her marriage was scheduled. But she was not willing to marry him. But accused No.1 alleged to have abducted PW.1 in his motor cycle and proceeded from Mysuru to Puttanapura via Nanjangud Chamarajanagar. But in the cross-examination of PW.1 who has stated that from Bandipalya to reach Chamarajanagar it took around 2½ hours. From Bandipalya via Suttur, T.Narasipur and Kollegal Cross they went to Chamarajanagar. Even this part of evidence on the part of PW.1 has not been elicited even by subjected to examination at length. Whereas the learned public prosecutor has taken the concept of Section 29 of POCSO Act insofar as presumption as to certain offences – where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and

¶63

12 -

¶64

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶65

Section 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved. The scope of Section 29 of the POCSO Act was also considered by the trial Court but given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.1 who is the victim and PWs.3 and 5 being the parents of PW.1 and PW.2 – Mallesha being the complainant and also relative of victim. But PW.5 – Mahadevappa is the father of victim girl and PW.6 – Prabhu is the maternal uncle of PW.1. But they have turned around to the version of their statements. Now the remaining evidence is the evidence of PW.8 – Dr.Ravi who issued Ex.P19 medical examination report of accused from which it is clear that no rape is committed by accused No.1 as alleged by the prosecution. Ex.P20 is the wound certificate. Even various mahazars have been conducted such as Ex.P1 – Mahazar, Ex.P3 – Mahazar inclusive of Ex.P21 – seizure mahazar. The said mahazars were conducted by the investigating officer during the course of

¶66

13 -

¶67

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶68

investigation. PW.10 – T.S.Lolakshi is the PSI who recorded the statement of PW.1. But nothing worthwhile has been elicited to prove the guilt against the accused in respect of various counts of offences. Even the wording of Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 even ‘as the case may be unless the contrary is proved’ has been used. It means initial burden is always upon the prosecution and it is the domain vested with prosecution itself to prove the guilt against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt to secure the conviction. But looking to the evidence on the part of prosecution from any angle particularly Ex.P.19 and P.26 and also Ex.D1 to D6, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has proved its case against accused that accused No.1 with the aid of accused Nos.2 and 3 abducted PW.1 – victim girl from the lawful possession of her parents with an intention to marry her and also committed some sort of sexual intercourse upon her in the house of CW.7 as stated in the charge sheet column. Whereas the trial Court has commanding upon almost all the evidence of the prosecution and arrived at a

¶69

14 -

¶70

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶71

conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and consequently, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 366 and 506 of IPC beside Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act.

¶72

Whereas learned HCGP for State has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 to 13. He relies mainly on the evidence of PW.1 who is the victim and PWs.3 and 5 who are the parents of victim girl. But PW.2 – Mallesha is the relative of deceased and wherein the accused No.1 with the assistance of accused Nos.2 and 3 came to the scene of crime wherein PW.1 was proceeding with her mother to see Palace in Mysuru City. But even on a close reading of Exs.P1 to P28 and particularly the contents in the mahazar and also the complaint as per Ex.P1 but accused No.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but denied the prosecution case and he did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf but got marked documents as per Exs.D1 to D4 and D6 in the cross examination of PW.1 and Ex.D5 in the cross examination of PW.2. The statement of accused

¶73

15 -

¶74

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶75

persons as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. Even on close scrutiny of evidence of PW.1, victim girl she had not attained the age of 18 years but there was some love affairs in between PW.1 and accused No.1. But merely there was love affairs in between them, it cannot be turned into abduction of victim girl from the lawful possession of her parents.

¶76

It is contended that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court on each count of the offences in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence and so also, revisiting of the impugned judgment of acquittal. Though the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 corroborates with each other and they have stated that the accused has committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim girl and though these witnesses were cross examined at length by the defense counsel, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the case of prosecution. Further, PW.1 victim girl has stated before the Court narrating the entire incident

¶77

16 -

¶78

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶79

regarding accused committing forcible sexual intercourse on her and her evidence is supported by the evidence of the Doctor who examined her. The trial Court has not considered the materials placed on record which itself prima facie establishes that the accused had love affairs with the minor girl and thus committed the offence. Therefore, it requires re-appreciation of the evidence whereby the trial Court misdirected and also misinterpreted the evidence of prosecution by rendering the acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal it requires intervention of the impugned judgment of acquittal in terms of re-appreciation if not, certainly there shall be miscarriage of justice and the complainant who is the gravamen of the accusation would suffer. On all these premises, learned HCGP for State seeks for intervention by consideration of the grounds urged in this appeal and to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court and convict the accused for the offences for which he has been charged.

¶80

17 -

¶81

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶82

Whereas learned counsel Sri A.Mahesh Chowdhary

¶83

is representing respondent No.2 - Smt.Suma who is none other than the mother of PW.1 victim girl. But she did not withstood the version of her statement and she has given a goby to the entirety of her statement made before the investigating officer during the course of investigation relating to abduction of her daughter of PW.1 – victim girl. PW.5 – Mahadevappa is no other than the father of PW.1 victim girl and he did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of these witnesses and even to the extent of their statements made before the IO is contrary to the contents of Ex.P2 – complaint and further contradictory to the contents of Mahazars – Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 inclusive of Ex.P21 – seizure mahazar. But PW.1 has also turned around to her statement recorded by PW.10 – being the PSI during the course of investigation. But PW.1 had fell in love with accused No.1 and that love affairs turned into physical contact but this accused No.1 having intention to marry victim girl because

¶84

18 -

¶85

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶86

of that reason alleged to have abducted when she was proceeding along with PW.2. But PW.1 – victim girl alleged to have been abducted with the assistance of accused Nos.2 and 3 who are co-accused and made her to captive in the house of CW.7 who is his relative and during night he had forcible sexual intercourse and also extending life threat by saying that if she discloses about the incident she would face dire consequences. It is contended that PW.1 victim girl has got married with accused No.1 and she is blessed with two children and now she is a carrying woman relating to the third child. But the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution did not support the case of prosecution to any extent in respect of abduction of PW.1 and also extending life threat and causing some injuries upon her. But the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt to secure conviction. The burden of proof it is upon the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence

¶87

19 -

¶88

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶89

to secure conviction. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1 and PWs.3 and 5 being her parents inclusive of PW.4 who is her sister, on the part of the prosecution and so also Ex.P19, the medical examination report of the accused and Ex.P26 relating to FSL report issued by the chemical examiner, but the prosecution is not able to establish the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the trial Court had considered the ratio of reliance in the case of Abdul Rasheed vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2000 SC 821 and even the case of Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC 487 wherein it is held that if the accused successfully rebuts the presumption by pleading and proving a probable defence, the presumption under Section 113-B stands rebutted and the prosecution must prove its case without the aid of such presumption. But in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial Court was rendering the acquittal judgment relating to each count of

¶90

20 -

¶91

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶92

an offence under Indian Penal Code and so also, offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Section 3 is relating to penetrative sexual assault but Section 4 is the punishment section relating to penetrative sexual assault against victim. But the ingredients of the said offences has not been established by the prosecution even though subjected to examination of material witnesses such as PWs. 1 to 7. Even at a cursory glance of those witnesses, the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence. Consequently, the contents at Ex.P2 complaint which was made by PW.2 – Mallesha and received by PW.13 being the IO wherein subscribed his signature and the case in entirety has been proceeded for investigation and laying of charge sheet. Even taking into consideration of the scope of Section 29 of POCSO Act, 2012 and even on each count of the offences, the initial burden is upon the prosecution itself that it has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is the Doctrine of criminal justice delivery system that while the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable

¶93

21 -

¶94

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶95

doubt, the defence of the accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution in all criminal trials, though the onus may shift to the accused in given circumstances, and if so provided by law. Therefore, the evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the appellant is probable and true. The same is enunciated in a judgment of Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC

¶96

487 . These are all the ratio of reliance which has been taken into consideration by the trial Court and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against accused and rendering the acquittal judgment. Therefore, in this appeal it does not arise for call for any interference as sought for by the State. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be rejected.

¶97

It is in this context of contentions severely made by learned HCGP for State and counter arguments advanced by learned respondent No.2 even taken into consideration of contention of respondent No.1 whereby securing service of

¶98

22 -

¶99

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶100

counsel namely Ningappa.H. but dwelling into the evidence of PW.1 who is victim and her date of birth as per Ex.P.28 is 5.11.1996. Initially PW.1 in her evidence which was recorded on 17.12.2013 has stated that as per prosecution case mainly stating that on 21.07.2013 at around 3.00 p.m. while she and PW.2 both were standing near Jayamarthanda Gate of Mysuru palace, at the relevant point of time accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 came in two motor cycles and by threatening her and also PW.2, abducted PW.1 and took her to Puttanapura village to the house of CW.7 and had committed sexual assault upon her during night. In the cross-examination she had adhered to her evidence which was stated in chief examination. Further during the cross-examination she has categorically stated and admitted the suggestion she has given evidence in S.C.No.271/2013 which is split up case in respect of accused No.3. Further she has admitted the suggestion that Ex.D6 is the certified copy of her evidence in S.C.No.271/2013 and evidence given by her in the said case

¶101

23 -

¶102

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶103

is correct. Further she has categorically stated she has not at all stated before police with regard to incident and not given her statement with regard to incident as narrated. She admitted that she and accused No.1 –Srikantaprasad both fell in love with each other and both of them decided to marry each other after attaining age of 18 years by her. Even at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.1 she has categorically stated that accused No.1 not at all abducted her and not at all committed rape upon her. In the further cross examination she has given a goby to the version of prosecution theory. PW.1 was incisively cross-examined, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to believe the theory of the prosecution that accused No.1 alleged to have abducted PW.1 with an intention to have marriage with her. But PW.1 is the victim girl and accused No.1 is alleged to have abducted her. But both of them were loving each other and parents of PW.1 were opposing love affairs of PW.1 with accused No.1 and they had decided to perform marriage of PW.1 with PW.2 – Mallesha who is none other than their

¶104

24 -

¶105

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶106

relative. But PW.1 was not showing interest to marry PW.2 and for this reason she herself might had gone to the house of CW.7 and remained there. PW.1 in her evidence in the split up case against accused Nos.2 and 3 has categorically stated that on 21.7.2013 herself, her parents, her sister and CW.1 all of them traveled to Mysuru from Bangalore by train at around 11.00 a.m. Subsequently all of them went to the house of her aunt. Thereafter to proceed to Kudlapura they came to Argate Cirle in Mysuru by a city bus. Since she was not interested in marriage scheduled with PW.2, she escaped from Argate circle and proceeded in a bus to the house of her friend Kavya at Puttanapura. These are all the evidence elicited by subjecting to examination of PW.1 and even though she stood for cross-examination on the part of the prosecution after she turned hostile. Even looking into the entirety of the prosecution case, it appears no incident of rape upon PW.1 is alleged to have been committed by accused No.1 in the house of CW.7 against her wishes. But there was some love affairs in between PW.1 and accused

¶107

25 -

¶108

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶109

No.1. But PW.10 being the investigating officer has not at all stood for any evidence to believe the version of PW.1 during the course of investigation. As already been stated the trial Court by commanding the evidence of PW.11 and 12 whereby they have secured to act as panch witnesses relating to the spot mahazar – Ex.P1 drawn in the house of CW.7 who is none other than the relative of accused No.1. PW.12 who stood for cross-examination relating to elicitation of the contents of Ex.P21 of seizure mahazar under which the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.KA 09 ES 891 was seized which was used by accused No.1 for abduction of victim girl. But Ex.P23 the report said to have been submitted by the PSI before the IO after securing accused No.1 along with motor cycle at his village and also the PW.1 victim girl from Puttanapura has not at all whispered about the seizure or recovery of the said motor cycle from accused No.1. In Ex.P23 it is also stated that both accused No.1 and PW.1 were in the house of PW.7 at Puttanapura Village and they were taken into custody on 22.7.2013, but it is not at all

¶110

26 -

¶111

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶112

stated in Ex.P23 report that accused No.1 had shown the house of PW.7 and from there PW.1 victim girl was taken into custody.

¶113

But strangely in the instant case and also the theory set up by the prosecution based upon the complaint at Ex.P2, there was love affairs in between accused No.1 and PW.1 and that love affairs turned into physical relationship in between them. But there was some meeting of mind for having marriage with each other. But her parents were opposing her marriage with accused No.1 as they were interested to schedule her marriage with PW.2 – Mallesha. It is submitted by counsel for respondent No.2 that accused No.1 got married with PW.1 – victim girl and she is blessed with two children and now she is carrying woman.

¶114

In the case of Abdul Rasheed vs. State of Gujarat

¶115

reported in AIR 2000 SC 821 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has addressed the issues relating to burden of proof cast upon the accused. Even it is observed that if circumstances

¶116

27 -

¶117

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶118

appearing in prosecution or in the prosecution evidence are such as to give reasonable assurance to the Court that appellant could not have had the knowledge or the required intention. But in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma And Ors. vs Superintendent And Remembrancer reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134 has held that “it is now well settled that the 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.”

¶119

The trial Court in the instant case has closely scrutinized the evidence of material witnesses on the part of the prosecution and rightly arrived at a conclusion by forming opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶120

28 -

¶121

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶122

Even in the appeal stage the presumptive value it has arisen

¶123

but the trial Court had arrival at a conclusion by close scrutiny of the evidence that the prosecution did not establish the guilt against the accused. At the appeal stage, even for re-appreciation of evidence and intervention of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court, unless there is worthwhile evidence elicited by the prosecution, it cannot arise for intervention of the impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. In the instant case, the material witnesses have given a goby to the version of their statements and in the evidence they did not withstood the version of statement recorded by the IO during the course of investigation and having no other go, the trial Court rendered the impugned judgment acquitting the accused of offences leveled against him. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court does not call for interference. In terms of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused. Consequently, the

¶124

29 -

¶125

CRL.A No. 1549 of 2016

¶126

appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

¶127

ORDER

¶128

The appeal preferred by the appellant / State under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.270/2013 dated 28.03.2016 is hereby confirmed.

¶129

Sd/JUDGE

¶130

Sd/JUDGE

¶131

DKB

State by Devaraja Police Station v. Srikantaprasad @ Changumani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by Devaraja Police Station v. Srikantaprasad @ Changumani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Bhoju Kulal

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Smt Puttananjamma

Smt Gangasiddamma Vs Suma

E C Asha Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri Haleshappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Mariyamma Vs Sri Suyambulingam v.