IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 PRESENT THE HONBLE rvlRJusTIcE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR AND THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH C....R.IM.1.. N.AL AP. P EAL N•o2796/. 201. 0.. BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MUNIRABAD PS. REP BY ADDITIONAL SPP DHARWAD. APPELLANT [BY SRI. VMBANAKAR, ASPPJ AND: KUMAR © KUMARSWAMY SO IRANNA ONIMANI AGE 23 YEARS GANIGERA LINGAYATH R/O LAXMIPUR, WARD NOJ8 SANDOOR, DIST. BEt.. LARY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 373’ 1 A\D 3 CF P C SEEKING O SE AS:DE E JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29/0812009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL IN S C NO 77 2007 FOR THE OFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTiONS 364 AND 307 OF I PC. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOP. HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the State questioning the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Koppal in Sessions Case No77/2007, By the impugned judgment, the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused wanted to marry PW5Chamanbeedaughter of PW3 and that the accused w•••as pressurizing PW3 and his family members to arrange for marriage. However, PW3 was not agreeing for the said proposal inasmuch as the accused and PW3 beicnq to different religions. Thus, the a.ccused was enraged o..pr the negative approach by PW3 and was threatening PVV3 that he will murder some of her family members. At about 500 pm. on 25/09/2007, the accused alieqedlv kidnapoed H comolainant’s scm :3: Hussalnbasha(PW-4) and took him to a place within the limits of Bevlnahaill village and threw him into a well with an intent to kill him. However, kidnapped boy(PW-4) escaped death with some Injuries and came out of the well by climbing with the help of shrubs. Complaint Is lodged by PW-3 on the next day i.e. on 26/09/2007 as per ExP-3 at about 7.00 p.m. before Munirabad police station which came to be registered In Crime No.185/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation laid the charge sheet for the aforementioned offences. 3. The prosecution in order to prove Its case, examined 10 witnesses and got marked 6 exhibits. On behalf of the defence, 2 exhIbits were got marked In the statement of PW-6. The trial Court on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing, acquitted the accused. 4. PW-1 Is the doctor who treated the victim and Issued wound certificate as per Ex.P-1. Wound certificate reveals that the victim has sustained 3 abrasions on the cp :4: right thigh. Such abrasions are simple in nature. The history recorded by the Doctor reveals that the boy has fallen into the well. The victim was treated on 26/09/2007. Obviously, the victim must have been taken by his mother. If really the victim was forcibly thrown into the well, either the mother or the victIm would not have forgotten to mention the same before the doctor. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the three abrasions found on the rIght thigh of PW-4 are simple in nature. 5. Admittedly, the complainant PW-3 got message from her son PW-4 at about 8.00 p.m. on 25/09/2007 about the alleged offence of kidnapping and attempt to commit murder by the accused. In spite of the same, she keeps quite till the next date i.e. 26/09/2007 up to 7.00 p.m. without lodging a complaint. It Is also not In dispute that the victim himself climbed the well and mentioned about the said fact to his mother PW-4 through telephone. He also did not venture to lodge the complaint before the police immediately thereafter. The prosecution has not explained the delay In lodging the complaint. :5: 6. The complaint Ex.P-3 lodged by PW-3 reveals that she was intimated by PW-4 that the accused and another person came on Bolero van and took him forcibly and threw him into a well. Such a first version having involvement of another person In the alleged offence Is not forthcoming during the course of evidence. In the evidence, PW-3(complainant) has deposed that PW-4 was taken in a bus and thereafter PW-4 was thrown into a well. Thus, the first version which indicated the involvement of another person is suppressed by the prosecution at subsequent stages. Who was that another person actually Involved In the incident is not forthcoming. 7. The evidence of PW-4(victim) Is still more Interesting. According to him, the accused told PW-4 that his eider slster(PW-S) was very much anxious to see him and therefore he should come along with him. Believing his words, PW-4 went along with the accused in a taxi tili Hospet. Thereafter, the accused and PW-4 came to a restaurant and ate snacks. Subsequently, PW-4 and the accused came In a private bus by name SVK Travels till \1> :6: Simla dhaba cross. From Simla dabha cross, both of them went towards Bevinahalli Village by walk. While so proceedIng, the accused allegedly threw the victim into the well by saying that his sister is in a nearby place. But came out of the well by using shrubs. 8. From the above it is clear that the evidence of PW-4 is totally contrary to the evidence of PW-3. The version of PW-3 is conflicting with her own version as found in Ex.P-3. The medical evidence does not support the theory of throwing PW-4 Into the well. Only three simple abrasions are found on the right thighS of PW-4. It is relevant to note that the well In question Is having l5feet depth as Is clear form Ex.P-4-scene of offence panchanama. If really, he was thrown Into the well, he would have sustained number of Injuries. Added to it the complaint is lodged with the delay of 24 hours and such delay has remained unexplained. 9. HavIng regard to the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused inasmuch VA) :7: as the case of the prosecution bristles with contradictions and the case as made out by the prosecution is highly suspicious. It is by now well settled that the High Court would not normally interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal in case the trial Court has taken one of the two possible views whIle acquitting the accused. The view taken by the trial Court is the only view that i.e. possible under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal fails. Dismissed. Sin Sd/a JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE Kmv