SMT. ANNAPOORNA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.12.2016 in S.C. No.370/2009 passed by the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore City (CCH-55) (hence forth for brevity referred to as the 'Sessions Court') the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The complainant in the said case has preferred this appeal wherein she has challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the said Court against the respondents No.2 and 3 herein for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 343, 376, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In her memorandum of appeal the appellant has taken contention that the seizure of the Innova car bearing registration No.KA 03 MK 2556, collection of hotel receipts as per EX.P3 discloses that the victim was in Anitha Towers at Chennai as per EX.P8 which was sufficient to hold that she was confined in the hotel from 29.11.2008 to 101.2009 by the accused which the Court below did not consider. The fact that PW.9 Dr. B M Nagaraju has deposed in his evidence stating that there were symptoms of sexual intercourse of the victim prior to four days of her examination, and his evidence about the victim undergoing sexual intercourse by the accused was also not properly appreciated by the court below. The said court ought to have over looked the minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Without doing the same has lead to an erroneous judgment. With this she has prayed for setting aside the judgment under appeal by allowing the appeal.

(3.) The first respondent is being represented by the State Public Prosecutor - I and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are being represented by their counsels.