STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. YOGESHA M.N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is set down for Orders. But learned HCGP Shri Rahul Rai K for the State is present before court physically and submits that Accused No.1 / Yogesha M.N. S/o. Nagaraju has died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal against him stands abated according to the provision of Sec. 394(2) of the Cr.P.C. This submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is placed on record and also the fair submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is acknowledged.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in a common judgment of Spl.C.No.97/2014 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 dtd. 9/4/2018. By the said judgment, the respondents herein who were arraigned as accused before the Trial Court have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Ss. 366A, 114 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This appeal is preferred by the State by urging various grounds and seeking intervention of the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court by re-visiting the entire evidence inclusive of exhibited documents and thereby to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and thereafter to convict the accused for the offences leveled against them.

(3.) Heard the learned HCGP for the State who is present before court physically and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal in common rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.97/2014 in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and Accused No.7. But in this case, Accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. had faced trial for the alleged offences before the Trial Court in the aforesaid case and the case had ended in acquittal. More so, he is the main accused relating to the incident narrated in the complaint filed by the gravamen of the incident, based upon which criminal law was set into motion. Insofar as the case in Spl.C.No.101/2015, it is in respect of Accused No.6 namely Kumar S/o. Nagaraju and even the case against him had also ended in acquittal inclusive of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in Spl.C.No.97/2014. The prosecution had let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P23. But no material objects were marked on the part of the prosecution and there is no defence evidence on the part of the accused even after conclusion of the trial and even after recording the statement of the accused as contemplated under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the prosecution and defence and examining the material documents both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused by its impugned judgment. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds.