SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
K. SOMASHEKAR, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, JJ.
The State of Karnataka, Through Station House Officer, Gandhi Chowk Police Station Vijayapura, Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Shri Somashekhar @ Pintya S/o. Shri Basanna Dolli - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200192 of 2021
Decided On : 20-04-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP.
For the Respondent: Sri R.S. Lagali.

Point of Law : Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 1 to 10 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(1), (3), 378, 164, 233, 313 – Indian Penal Code 1860 – Sections 365, 344, 376 (2) (n), 504, 506 –Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3, 9 – Protection Of Children from Fexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5 and 6 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) – Seeking reversal of the acquittal judgment and conviction – Quash of criminal Proceeding – First Information Report – Para 27.

Finding of the court: Though Appellate Court has complete power to review, re-appreciation, and reconsider evidence upon which order of acquittal is founded and provision in Code of Criminal Procedure puts no limitation, restriction, or condition on exercise of such power and an Appellate Court based on evidence before it may reach its conclusion both on question of fact and question of law it can reverse acquittal judgment only for compelling reasons –In instant case, evidence are to be analysed carefully as they are material witnesses also entire case is revolving around their evidence – Theory is that victim was abducted in a broad daylight on bike under the threat and the accused abducted her and took her to Bang – Theory of abduction on bike itself is unbelievable – Owner of premises where the accused and victim stayed did not suspect anything would make the prosecution case highly doubtful – Court has considered evidence facilitated by prosecution and mainly evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and who are prime witnesses on behalf of prosecution – Their evidence did not give any support to prosecution theory

Results: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court in Special Case (POCSO) No.30/2016 dated 17.02.2021, whereby the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 365, 344, 376 (2) (n), 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, besides Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (xi) and 3(2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this appeal, the State is seeking reversal of the acquittal judgment and conviction of the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent accused also submitted that both the victim and the accused are married and are blessed with two children, one child is aged four years and the second child is aged one year.

3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali for the respondent/accused. Perused the judgment rendered by the trial Court in Special Case (POCSO) No.30/2016.

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

The complaint at Ex.P-1 divulged that on 18.05.2016 at around 10.30 a.m. the accused allegedly followed the victim and her sister PW-1 in Dhobale Galli of Vijayapur city on a silver colour motorcycle, dragged the victim forcibly, and threatened both the sisters at knifepoint and made the victim sit on his motorcycle and thereafter fled away from the place.

Subsequently, the sister of the victim PW-1 made phone calls to her maternal uncle and other relatives who arrived at Vijayapura at 12.30 p.m. and searched for the victim. However, they could not trace her. Further, they tried to search for the victim for the next 2 days, and thereafter a complaint came to be lodged with the concerned police. FIR at Ex P26 is also recorded for the offences reflected therein.

6. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and the investigation is carried out and the charge sheet against the accused is filed before the Special Case (POCSO) No.30/2016. The trial court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the defence counsel and on prima facie materials found against the accused relating to the offences lugged against him framing of charges and accused did not pleaded guilty but claimed to be tried.

7. After framing of charges against the accused, the prosecution let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-22 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-32 and got marked contradictory statements of PW-3 at Exs.D1 to D3 and so also got marked M.O.1 to M.O.6. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for enabling him to answer to the evidence which appeared against him. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances against him. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to enter any defence evidence. But he did not choose to adduce any evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.

8. After the closure of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and so also the defence counsel for the accused. The trial court considered the evidence in respect of the averments at Ex.P-1 complaint as made by PW-1 who is the sister of the victim and also the evidence of PW-3 the victim girl. The evidence of PW-9 Dr Meenakshi, the evidence of PW-10 Dr Ashok Rajput, evidence of PW-22 Dr Ram L. Arasiddi, and the evidence of Investigating Officers were considered. Also by perusing the statements made by the victim who was examined as PW-3, wherein her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. marked as Exs.D1 to D3, and so also on scrutiny of the evidence of PW-4 in respe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top