The absence of corroborative evidence renders the sole testimony insufficient for conviction under criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

G.BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Spl. C. No.64/2013 dated 01.10.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Dy.S.P, Malavalli Sub-Division, Malavalli submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 01.08.2013 at about 06.30 p.m. near Milk Produce Women's Co-operative Society Ltd., at Maliyuru village when the complainant was taking the milk with the help of CW2-Nanjamma and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 came and asked her with regard to giving of bonus of five years and at that time complainant requested the accused No.1 to come after 5 minutes and at that time accused No.1 questioned with regard to the delay of one month and the complainant told that her children are not well and thereby she is not able to write the document and at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 abused her in filthy language as

knowing fully well that she belongs to SC community and humiliated her and insulted her in the public view and accused No.1 slapped on her cheek and also assaulted on her left neck and with an intention to outrage her modesty caught hold her nighty, dragged her and torn her nighty and also threatened the complainant stating that they will kill her if she gave a complaint to the police and accordingly after arrival of her husband the complainant had been to the police station and filed complaint basing upon which the Kirugavalu police registered a case and thereafter, Dy.S.P, Malavalli, took up further investigation and collected the evidence and submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the above said offences. After filing the charge-sheet the case was registered in Spl.C No.64/2013 and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enlarged on bail.

5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged commission of offences, same was read over and explained to accused Nos.1 and 2. Having understood the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, in all, 13 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13. 9 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9. One material object marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness. However, they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 and accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the trial judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. The trial judge grossly erred in assessing the evidence of eye- witnesses examined as PW2 to PW4, PW11 to PW13. Though independent witnesses have not supported, merely on the evidence of PW1 and PW8, the trial judge has convicted both the appellants. The trial judge has failed to appreciate th