(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides at considerable length because the charge in this case is a serious one under Section 392 IPC and the learned Addl. SPP submits that apart from the victim PW3 that there are other two eyewitnesses PWs 4 and 7, who know the accused, who have identified him and despite all these three witnesses the trial Court has acquitted the accused. His submission is that the accused, who pretended to be a photographer and came to a traditional social ceremony for taking photographs, took advantage of the fact that the girl PW3 was sitting alone in front of the house, that he snatched all the three gold chains that she was wearing around her neck, one of which was a shot chain which was tied something like a choker and the other two were long chains hanging almost upto the waist. PW3 raised an alarm, the accused was chased, but he disappeared in the darkness. The learned Addl. SPP submits that this was a social function, that the accused is not a stranger, that the incident has been witnessed by PWs 4 and 7, who have corroborated the evidence of PW3 and that consequently, this is a case where a straight conviction ought to have been recorded.
(2.) AS against this, the respondents learned counsel submits that the entire case is framed up because the accused is a journalist, he had gone to photograph certain incriminating evidence relating to the sale of illicit liquor, that he was attacked, his camera was snatched and that he has lodged a complaint with regard to the incident, which case is still not decided. Regardless of this defence, what he submitted is that the trial Court has carefully analysed the evidence and disbelieved it and Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy, the learned counsel who represents the respondent submitted that in the absence of any recovery and in the absence of any independent evidence, no interference is called for in this case.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides on merits of the case and we have also perused the records.