JAGANNATH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The present appellants were accused Nos.2 to 11 in the case brought against them for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 504, 506, 366, 511 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity).

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would take this Court through the record to demonstrate that, assuming all the allegations in the complaint are to be accepted, whether the evidence tendered before the court was sufficient to hold that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Even according to the complainant, Leelavathi was familiar with the Accused Nos.1 and 2, as they were neighbours and that Leelavathi and Accused No.1 had developed close friendship with each other and it was also not disputed that Leelavathi had gone away with Accused No.1 on an earlier occasion and had lived with him in Hyderabad for several days, before she had contacted the complainant on telephone, and it was thereafter that she was brought back home by the complainant. This would indicate that there was no action taken by the complainant insofar as the earlier incident where Leelavathi and Accused No.1 had stayed together at Hyderabad. It is also the complainant's case that the accused was claiming to have married Leelavathi and photographs had also been produced, to show that Leelavathi was wearing a taali, in proof of the marriage with the complainant. Therefore, it was understandable that the Accused No.1 had been insisting that Leelavathi should be sent along with him, which the complainant was resisting. Hence, in order to put an end to the demands by Accused No.1, to claim that Leelavathi was his wife and that she should be sent along with him, a false case has been foisted against him. In the bargain, the present accused Nos.2 to 11 have been implicated and therefore, there is no substance of any motive or other reason as to the involvement of Accused Nos.2 to 11. The claim that on the date of the incident, the present accused having come in a Tata sumo vehicle and having trespassed into the house of the complainant and further having threatened him with dire consequences if he did not willingly send Leelavathi along with them, and thereafter having attempted to drag her away, and having been chased away by the other people gathered there, is a claim which was required to be established by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt. Though Accused No.2 was earlier the neighbourer of the complainant, Accused Nos.3 to 11 were total strangers to the complainant. It is the not the case of the complainant that he had known or recognized anyone of them. So also, PW-7 Leelavathi, did not claim to know any of the Accused Nos.3 to