Point of Law: In a criminal trial, testimony of official witness needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible same shall be corroborated in material particulars and evidence of independent witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of sentence dated 23.09.2014 in S.C.No.413/2011 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Judge’).

2. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 366(A) read with Section 34 of IPC for a period of seven years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/each and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 344 read with Section 34 of IPC with simple imprisonment for one year each and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of fine, they are further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, on 18.03.2011 about 4.00 p.m., at Santibastawad village, near Navage cross, Shivaji Nagar, the accused No.1/appellant No.1 with an intention to marry the daughter of the complainant, along with accused Nos.2 to 6 in furtherance of their common intention enticed the victim-girl and kidnapped her in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA22/EE3684 and took her to Navage cross and from there he took her to Belgaum busstand and from there to Kolhapur. It is the further case of the prosecution that, the accused No.1 wrongfully confined the victim in a room for about 18 days and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her and thereafter took her to Ramaguruwadi village of Khanapur taluk and stayed in the house of garden land for two days and committed forcible sexual intercourse on her without her consent.

4. In respect of the said incident, a complaint being lodged by the father of the victim-girl i.e. Durgappa Naik on 21.03.2011 and FIR got registered in Crime No.644/2011 dated 21.03.2011 against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 366(A), 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. As per Ex.P.29 and subsequently the respondent-police after completing investigation submitted the chargesheet before the trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 376, 366(A), 344 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC against 6 accused persons. Later the case committed to the learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi and the trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

5. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused before the trial Court, the prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21, got marked 31 documents i.e. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P31 and 15 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.15. However, the accused has neither examined any witness nor produced any documents in his favour. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.2 to 5 for the offences charged against them, however, convicted accused Nos.1 and 6 i.e. appellants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Section 344 read with Section 34 of IPC as stated supra. However, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned Judgment, the appellants i.e. accused Nos.1 and 6 preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. S.B.Deyannavar, appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 6 and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that, the Judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality and the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence and materials available on record. Learned counsel contends that, all the material witnesses including the victim-girl, have been turned hostile to the prosecution case, the complainant P.W.1 and