IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the significance of corroborative evidence in assessing the trustworthiness of witness testimony and emphasizes the need for scrutiny and corroboration, especially in cases where the witness is not available for cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

The State has preferred this appeal challenging the acquittal judgment in S.C.No.705/2008 on the file of LI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. The prosecution case is like this:

PW1-M.G.Shantha Kumar gave a report dated 12. 07.2006 to the Inspector of Police, Tilaknagar police station, Bengaluru stating that on 10. 07.2006 accused No.1 and others kidnapped him from a place near Adiga’s Hotel situated at 4th Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru, took him to Anekal and obtained his signatures on a sale deed by putting threat. He was taken to the office of Sub Registrar, Anekal for getting the sale deed registered. Since registration was not possible on that day, he was taken to the house of accused No.1 and detained there overnight. On the next day he was again taken to Anekal under threat to his life and the sale deed was presented for registration. Though he cried for help, nobody helped him at the Sub-Registrar’s office. He was physically weak and mentally disturbed and therefore he could not protest strongly. The demand draft for Rs.63 crores which was given to him was taken back by the accused forcibly. He was released around 11.00pm on 11.07.2006. He also stated that he was prevented from contacting his people by making telephone calls. Based on this report, FIR in Crime No.174/2006 was registered on 14.07.2006 at 10.30am for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 342 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Investigation led to filing of charge sheet against two accused persons and ultimately they faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 346, 347, 364, 368, 384, 392, 420, 465, 467, 468, 506 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. After assessing the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt against the accused for the offences charged against them and thereby acquitted them of all the offences. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the arguments of Sri B.N.Jagadish, learned Additional SPP for the appellant/State, Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Advocate and Sri M.R.C.Manohar, learned Advocate who argued on behalf of Smt. Rachitha Nanaiah, Advocate for respondents/accused No.1 and 2.

5. It is the argument of Sri B.N.Jagadish that the trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 17. What he argued was that PW1 was the victim of the entire incident. He possessed certain extent of land near Anekal. Accused No.1 came forward to buy his lands and there came into existence an agreement of sale. The sale consideration agreed was Rs.650/- per square foot. Accused No.1 took out a paper publication in Kannada daily Vijaya Karnataka about his intention to purchase the land belonging to PW1. Thereafter since accused No.1 did not come forward to purchase the property before 31.12.2005, which was the date agreed for payment of the entire consideration, PW1 had to look for other purchasers and in that course one M/s. Magna Warehousing and Distribution Pvt. Ltd., showed interest to purchase the property for consideration @ Rs.825/- per square foot. They also took out a paper publication in English daily Times of India. When it so happened, accused No.1 again called PW1 for discussion. When PW1 went near Adiga’s Hotel situated at 4th Block, Jayanagara on the request of accused No.1, he was kidnapped from that place on 10.07.2006, taken to Anekal where he was forced to put his signatures on the sale deed. Thereafter he was taken to Sub Registrar’s office, Anekal. For some reasons the sale deed was not registered and therefore accused No.1 wrongfully confined PW1 in his house on that night and on the next day i.e., on 11. 07.2006, PW1 was again taken to Sub Registrar’s Office Anekal for completing the registration process. The signatures of PW1 was forcibly taken near obliterated portion in the sale deed. Even the demand draft which was given to him was snatched. PW1 was let free around