JUDGMENT :

1. The State represented by the High Court Government Pleader has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 28.02.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.15/2015 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur ( for short the Appellate Court ), acquitting the accused for the said offence punishable under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC for the sake of brevity) by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2015 passed in C.C.No.738/2009 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and I Additional JMFC, Ranebennur ( for short the Trial Court ) for the said offence.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein being the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC. It is stated that the accused who was also accused in Crime No.58/2008 of Halageri Police Station was in the custody and he escaped from the lawful custody and committed the offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC. It is stated that the accused was apprehended by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.58/2008 of Halageri Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. When the accused was apprehended and was detained in custody, he escaped from the lawful custody. The first in formation was registered in Crime No.60/2008 and after investigation filed charge sheet for the above said offence. The accused has appeared through the Court to answer the charge leveled against him and he pleaded not guilty.

3. The prosecution in order to prove its contention, examined PWs.1 to 12, got marked Exs.P1 to P8 in support of its contention. Accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to convict the accused for the offence under Section 224 of the IPC. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to pay fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

4. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.15/2015 before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.2 to 5 and therefore, the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused and he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC. Assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court, the State is in appeal be fore this Court.

5. Heard Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, learned HCGP for appellant-State and Sri. R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned HCGP for the appellant-State submitted that the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 in support of its contention. PWs.2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are the material witnesses, who have spoken to regarding the apprehension o f the accused and also escape of the accused from the lawful custody. Ex.P6 is the Personal Search Register which discloses that the accused was apprehended on the date of the incident in Crime No.58/2008. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of these witnesses. All the witnesses have consistently deposed before the Trial Court regarding apprehension of accused and the accused running away from the lawful custody. The Trial Court properly appreciated the materials on record and had convicted the accused, but the Appellate Court relied on minor contradictions and