Point of Law : In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence that is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact.

JUDGMENT :

The Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 and Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 are filed against the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2012 dated 22.04.2013, whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 365, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for short).

2. Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 is filed by the complainant namely Hanmanth S/o Lachmayya Balichakra seeking interference in the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court.

3. Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal judgment in S.C.No.81/2012. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 22.04.2013 in S.C.No.81/2012 Therefore, these appeals have been taken up together for common judgment to be rendered.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri Kedar Desai for appellant/complainant, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State and so also learned counsel Sri Ganesh Naik for respondent No.1 respectively and for respondent No.2. Perused the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.81/2012.

5. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 Hanumanth who is the father of the victim girl Lakshmi aged about 12 years, has filed a complaint before the Yadgir Rural Police. In the complaint, it is stated that on 25.03.2012 at about 10-00 a.m. Bhimaraya S/o Ashappa CW-11, a relative of the complainant had taken Lakshmi to their house since she had not gone there for a long time. On 26.03.2012 at about 6.00 a.m. the said Bhimaraya informed the complainant over the phone that on the previous day at about 10.30 p.m. the accused Mallikarjun had come to the house on his motorcycle and knocked the door by calling Lakshmi. He and Lakshmi went out of the house and said Mallikarjun suddenly caught hold of the hand of Lakshmi, forcibly got her seated on the motorcycle, and went away. The complainant searched for his daughter, but could not trace her. On 30.03.2012 he came to the police station and complained Ex.P-1. The PSI of Yadgir rural Police Station, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.52/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, FIR has been recorded as Per Ex.P-16. After that, criminal law was set into motion.

6. Investigating Officer has taken the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused by securing the medical certificate and so also drew spot mahazar at Ex.P-7, seizure mahazar Ex.P-8, cloth seizure mahazar at Ex.P-9 and another spot mahazar at Ex.P-10, FSL report at Ex.P-12 and potentiality certificate at Ex.P-15. And laid charge is laid sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction.

7. After laying of charge sheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions by passing a committal order by the committal Court as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

8. After committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the case has been registered in S.C.No.81/2012. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel for accused, framed charges against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 365, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a plea of the accused was recorded separately.

9. After framing of charges, the prosecution let in evidence of PWs1 to 15 and produced Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.O.1. After the closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statements which appeared against them in the evidence. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence. No evidence was led under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. by the accused.

10. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, on scrutiny of the evid