STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CAUYERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Sessions Case No. 451/2000, dated 30-1-2002 wherein accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, the respondents herein have been acquitted of the offence punishable under S. 366, 342 and 506 r/w 149, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows : it is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 the complainant, the mother of PW-2 lodged a complaint before Adugodi Police Station on 21-3-1997 at about 10 p. m. as per Ex. P-1. PW-11 is the Head Constable who registered the said complaint, prepared the FIR as per Ex. P-8, went to the spot and prepared mahazar as per Ex. P-2. It is averred in the complaint that the accused are known to the complainant and they are the residents of her parents village. On 20-3-1997, the Complainant and her daughter Manjula (PW-2) had gone to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law, maddurappa's son at Corporation Samudaya bhavana in Adugodi-Koramangala Road. At about 10 p. m. , when herself and her daughter were sitting together in the said Samudaya bhavana, Cauverappa came and told that he wanted to talk to Manjula and took Manjula outside the Community Hall. About five minutes thereafter, pw-3 Shivashankar came and informed her that accused Nos. 1 to 4 had kidnapped her daughter Manjula in the Autorickshaw bearing No. CAS 213 driven by accused No. 3 Krishnappa. She got alarmed and she searched for PW-2, her daughter manjula. She went to Chikkabegur and searched there suspecting that she might have gone there. Her daughter could not be found there. Therefofe, she filed a complaint before the Police. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW-2 was found in the house of sister of accused No. 1 by PW-9 on receiving credible information and at about 6. 15 p. m. on 5-4-1997, PW-9 had been deputed to search for the accused and PW-2. He found that in the Auto-Rickshaw, accused No. 1 cauverappa and PW-2 were sitting and accused no. 5 was driving the Auto-Rickshaw and he apprehended them and produced them along with the Auto-Rickshaw before the PSI. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 5, case was split-up against accused No. 2 as he was not available for trial and during the course of evidence, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 506 r/w 149, Indian Penal Code. However, since it was found that the offence committed was triable by the Court of Session, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter, PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-8 and Mos 1 and 2 were got marked by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is one of denial. It is the case of the accused that a false complaint has been foisted at the instance of the brother of PW-2 and that accused have not committed any offence.

(3.) THE trial Court after considering the contentions of the learned SPP and the learned counsel appearing for the accused held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have committed the offence punishable under ss. 366, 342 and 506 Indian Penal code r/w 149, Indian Penal Code by its judgment dated 30-1-2002 and being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. I have heard the learned SPP and the learned Counsel for the respondents.