Point of Law : Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even to prove / disprove or not prove this domain is equally vested with the prosecution and also an important domain vested with the Trial Court relating to appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is set down for Orders. But learned HCGP Shri Rahul Rai K for the State is present before court physically and submits that Accused No.1 / Yogesha M.N. S/o. Nagaraju has died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal against him stands abated according to the provision of Section 394(2) of the Cr.P.C. This submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is placed on record and also the fair submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is acknowledged.

Accused No.1 as well as the remaining accused in Spl.Case No.97/2014 and Spl. Case No.101/2015 have faced trial before the Trial Court, but the case has ended in acquittal against all of the accused. The entire role is made against Accused No.1 only. But, the case against the said Accused No.1 stands abated as under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the matter even though is set down for Orders, it is taken up for final disposal, where the remaining accused Nos.2 to 7 are arraigned as respondent Nos.2 to 7 in this appeal. Their counsel during the course of trial has taken defence and the same can be seen in the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and the cross-examination relating to the witnesses have been let in by the prosecution, which is taken into consideration in this appeal also. The remaining Accused Nos.2 to 6 have engaged the services of the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K. However, process though served upon Respondent No.7 herein who is Accused No.7 in Spl.C.No.101/2015, but he has remained absent and unrepresented. However, this Accused No.7 also had faced trial before the Trial Court in respect of which the Trial Court has rendered a common judgment of acquittal. Therefore, process against him also be taken into consideration relating to keeping in view the role of each one of the accused, and more importantly except Accused No.1 who is no more, the remaining accused only to participate in the proceedings as alleged. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K who is on record for Accused Nos.2 to 6 / Respondents 2 to 6 is taken into consideration in this appeal whereby the accused have engaged his services. This observation is made in this appeal.

2. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in a common judgment of Spl.C.No.97/2014 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 dated 09.04.2018. By the said judgment, the respondents herein who were arraigned as accused before the Trial Court have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This appeal is preferred by the State by urging various grounds and seeking intervention of the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court by re-visiting the entire evidence inclusive of exhibited documents and thereby to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and thereafter to convict the accused for the offences leveled against them.

3. Heard the learned HCGP for the State who is present before court physically and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal in common rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.97/2014 in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and Accused No.7. But in this case, Accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. had faced trial for the alleged offences before the Trial Court in the aforesaid case and the case had ended in acquittal. More so, he is the main accused relating to the incident narrated in the complaint filed by the gravamen of the incident, based upon which criminal law was set into motion. Insofar as the case in Spl.C.No.101/2015, it is in respect of Accused No.6 namely Kumar S/o. Nagaraju and even the case against him had also ended in acquittal inclusive of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in Spl.C.No.97/2014. The prosecution had let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to