Evidence must be corroborated; unsupported testimony cannot form the basis for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 15^th April 2015, passed in SC No.348 of 2013 by the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court"). Accused No.3-Murali has preferred Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2015 and accused No.1-Jayaramu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2015.

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

3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, the Sub- Inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station filed charge-sheet against Accused 1 to 3 alleging that they have committed offence punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code . It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15^th September, 2012 at about 9.00 pm, Accused 1 to 3 came in an Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-02/AB-5258 and kidnapped PW4 with an intention to commit her murder. When the said autorickshaw was proceeding near AK colony, Sampige Halli, PW4 started shouting for help and neighbours came and rescued her. Accused No.3 fled the place in the said Autorickshaw and thereby accused have committed offences punishable under Section 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code .

4. After filing charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.24071 of 2012 and committed to the court of Sessions which came to be registered as SC No.348 of 2013. Accused were enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, charges were framed for the offence under Sections 363 , 364 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same were read over and explain to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9 and got 10 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P10. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial court acquitted accused 1 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code , however, convicted accused 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 364 of . The trial court acquitted the accused no.2 for offence punishable under , 364 and 307 read with 34 of . The trial Court has sentenced the accused 1 and 3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- each for the offence punishable under of . Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, Accused1 and 3 have preferred these appeals.

6. Learned Counsel Sri B.R. Vishwanath, appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.520 of 2015, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave error in accepting and acting upon the evidence of PWs1 to 9. It is submitted that none of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, categorically stated that the appellants are involved in the alleged kidnapping of complainant. The learned judge has failed to appreciate the fact that PW4-Anushree, the complainant had already filed a complaint against her husband i.e., accused No.1 under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and there was a misunderstanding and ill-will between the complainant and accused No.1, who is none other than her husband. The accused No.1 is not at all known to appellant herein. The appellant is only an auto driver and he has no necessity or occasion to kidnap the complainant. There is no evidence to show that appellant is involved in the affairs of the complai