STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GANTA KRISHNA ALIAS GANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed in S.C. No.78/2011.

(2.) THE Court below, after appreciating the evidence available before it, has acquitted accused No.3 to 5 under Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code as it was not convinced that the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code alleged against accused No.3 to 5 had been proved against them beyond reasonable doubt. It is to be noticed at this stage that accused No.1 and 2 had not been secured before the Court below and, as such, the case against accused No.1 and 2 had been split and the trial had been taken out against accused No.3 to 5.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to decide upon the merits of the case, it is to be noticed that, at the first instance, when this appeal had been listed before this Court, this Court had directed notice to the respondents. Though respondent No.3 is served, he has not chosen to appear. Insofar as respondents No.1 and 2, the notice issued is yet to be served. The report received from the police would indicate that even from the details obtained from the Mysore Mahanagara Palike, the address of the 1st respondent indicated therein does not exist in Mysore. Therefore, taking note of the said aspect and also keeping in view the nature of allegation in the present proceedings and the degree of evidence required with regard to the alleged offence which had taken place on 09.01.2008, we have thought it fit to consider as to whether any purpose would be served in retaining the matter and taking further process in the matter and thereafter consider the appeal after appointing an Amicus Curiae. It is in this regard, we have noticed that in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the facts, prima facie, would disclose that the entire case depended on the identification of the accused by the complainant and this aspect had been doubted by the Court below. It is in that circumstance, we find that it would be appropriate to make a detailed consideration of the judgment at this stage itself, on having noticed the findings rendered by the Court below and the evidence that was recorded by it. Hence, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to proceed further in the matter instead of taking out alternative steps for securing the presence of the respondents herein.