Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100126/2018
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100231/2018
In Crl.A.No.100126/2018:
Between:
Santosh S/o. Govind Kerur,
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Auto Driver,
R/o. Krishnapur Oni, 2nd Cross,
Behind Manjunath Temple, Old Hubballi,
(now in judicial custody)
(now undergoing sentence)
…Appellant
(By Sri.T.R.PATIL, Adv.)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
(Old Hubballi Police Station, Hubballi)
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
2
2. Ku.Rajeshwari D/o. Ishwar Doddamani,
Occ.Household work,
R/o.Old Hubballi, Krishnapur Oni,
1st Cross, Hubballi, Tq. Hubballi,
Dist.Dharwad
…Respondents
(By Sri.T.R.Patil, Adv.)
This criminal appeal is filed under section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., seeking to allow the appeal and call for records and to
set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed in Spl.
SC/ST No.10/2016, dated 27.02.2018 and sentence dated
09.03.2018 passed by the II Addl. District and Sessions and
Spl. Judge, Dharwad and consequently acquit the appellant
who is arrayed as accused No.1 for the offences punishable
under Section 6 of POCSO Act by allowing this criminal appeal.
In Crl.A.No.100231/2018:
Between:
State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Police Sub Inspector,
Old Hubballi Police Station, Hubballi,
Through the Additional State
Public Prosecutor,
State Public Prosecutor,
Advocate General Office,
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
…Appellant
(By Sri.V.M.Banakar, Addl.S.P.P.)
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
3
AND:
1. Santosh S/o.Govind Kerur,
Age: 24 years, Occ. Auto Driver,
R/o.Krishnapur Oni, 2nd Cross,
Behind Manjunath Temple,
Old Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad.
2. Ku.Rajeshwari D/o.Ishwar Doddamani,
Age: 26 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Old Hubballi, Krishnapur Oni,
1st Cross, Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad.
…Respondents
(By Sri.T.R.Patil, Adv. for R1,
R2 served)
This criminal appeal is filed under section 377 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to call for records and to set aside the judgment and
order in Spl. SC/ST No.10/2016, dated 27.02.2018 on the file
of II Addl. District and Sessions and Spl. Judge, Dharwad, so
far it relates to imposition of inadequacy sentence to the
respondent/accused and to sentence the respondent/accused
as provided under law.
These criminal appeals having been heard and reserved
for judgment on 07.07.2021, coming on for pronouncement of
judgment this day, J.M.Khazi J., delivered the following:
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
4
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order
dated 27.02.2018 in Spl.SCST No.10/2016 on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge at Dharwad.
While Criminal Appeal No.100126/2018 is filed by accused
No.1 challenging his conviction and sentence of the offence
punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, the State has
filed Criminal Appeal No.100231/2018 seeking enhancement
of the punishment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.100126/2018, who is respondent No.1 in
Criminal Appeal No.100231/2018 is referred to as “accused
No.1” and the State of Karnataka, who is appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.100231/2018 and respondent No.1 in the other
appeal is referred to as “prosecution”.
3. The allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3 are
that the prosecutrix belong to Samagara community and
accused Nos.1 to 3 knowing fully well that she belong to the
said community coming under the Schedule Caste category,
on 11.03.2013 at around 12:30 p.m., while the prosecutrix
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
5
after completing the SSLC supplementary exam alongwith her
friend CW.17 Vaishnavi, accused Nos.1 and 2 came in an
autorickshaw and forcibly took the prosecutrix and her friend
in the said autorickshaw. While accused No.2 was driving the
autorickshaw, accused No.1 with the prosecutrix and her
friend sat in the back seat and directed accused No.2 to take
them to old bus stand. When prosecutrix requested him to
allow her to get down from the autorickshaw saying that her
father will be angry, accused No.1 slapped on her cheek. After
getting down from the autorickshaw, accused No.1 forcibly
took the prosecutrix to Mundagod by travelling in the bus and
when she refused to accompany him, he gave threat to her
saying that if she does not accompany him, he is going to
pour acid on her. From Mundagod accused No.1 took the
prosecutrix in a passenger auto to Kyasanakeri and alongwith
accused No.3 kept the prosecutrix in the house of CW.20
Manjula W/o. Shankar Ramanakoppa. Without informing
CWs.20 and 21 about the truth of having brought the
prosecutrix forcibly, accused No.1 kept the prosecutrix in the
house of CW.20 and saying that he is going to marry her,
accused No.1 had forcible sexual intercourse with the
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
6
prosecutrix and for a total period of 20 days, accused No.1
wrongfully confined the prosecutrix and during this period, five
times he had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
The allegations against accused No.3 is that whenever the
prosecutrix told him that she wanted to go back, accused No.3
used to force her to stay on the pretext that accused No.1
would marry her and thereby accused Nos.1 to 3 have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 344,
366A, 376, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(“IPC” for short) and Sections 3(1)(xi), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(“SC/ST Act” for short).
4. After conducting detail investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1
to 3 in Special SCST CC No.24/2013. All the accused persons
were on bail. After framing charge, a detail trial was held
against accused Nos.1 to 3, wherein 27 witnesses were
examined and Exs.P-1 to P-25 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked
for the prosecution. Till 21 witnesses were examined, accused
No.1 participated in the said proceedings and fully cross-
examined the witnesses. However, after the examination of
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
7
accused No.1, he remained absconding and ultimately charge
against him came to be split up and the trial was proceeded
against accused Nos.2 and 3. Ultimately by judgment and
order dated 29.07.2015, the learned II Addl. District and
Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad acquitted accused Nos.2
and 3. The split up case against accused No.1 was registered
as Special SCST CC No.10/2016. When non-bailable warrant
was issued against accused No.1, on 27.09.2016 he has
surrendered before the Court and he was taken to judicial
custody. Later on, his application for bail was rejected by the
learned Special Judge. On 29.06.2017 charge is framed
against accused No.1. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Once again a full fledged trial was held against
accused No.1, wherein 22 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to
22 and Exs.P-1 to 29 and MOs.1 and 2 are marked.
5. The learned Special Judge has recorded the
statement of accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by
putting incriminating evidence arising in Special SCST CC
No.10/2016 and he has denied the incriminating material
against him. He has not chosen to lead defence evidence on
his behalf. By the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2018, the
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
8
learned Special Judge has found accused No.1 guilty of the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 344, 376 and 506
read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(xi),
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
However, accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 366A read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence of
imprisonment, accused No.1 has filed Criminal Appeal
No.100126/2018 and seeking enhancement of the
punishment, the State has filed Criminal Appeal
No.100231/2018.
7. We have heard the learned counsel representing
accused No.1 as well as the Additional State Public Prosecutor
for the State and perused the records.
8. The learned counsel representing accused No.1
argued and submitted that the impugned judgment and order
of conviction is not only erroneous, but it is perverse,
capricious and contrary to the settled principles of law and
liable to be set aside. The Trial Court ought to have accepted
the evidence on oath by the victim girl in the second trial,
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
9
wherein she has deposed on oath under what circumstances
she has given evidence in the earlier case i.e., Special SC/ST
CC No.24/2013.
9. He submitted that the Trial Court ought to have
accepted the best and the acceptable, plausible evidence
which is beneficial to the accused. The prosecutrix has
categorically deposed that accused No.1 never kidnapped and
he never committed any sexual assault on her and despite,
the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the
earlier evidence on record is the best evidence and based on it
has rendered the judgment of conviction against accused No.1
and it is against the provisions of law.
10. He further submitted that the Trial Court should
have appreciated and extended the benefit of doubt to
accused No.1, when there is contradictory evidence on record
and there is no evidence to prove the allegations against
accused No.1. The medical evidence placed on record is
contrary to the allegations made against accused No.1. He
submitted that the prosecution story that the victim girl was
made to travel from place to place and stay in different places
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
10
and at no point of time, prosecutrix has raised any alarm, is
not believable. The impugned order is based on assumptions,
presumptions, conjunctures and imaginary grounds.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the
Trial Court has wrongly applied the provisions of Section 33 of
the Indian Evidence Act and held that the evidence recorded in
the earlier case is applicable and accused cannot raise
objections for the same. Accused No.1 never requested the
Trial Court to hold fresh trial or a de novo trial. It was the
prosecution which requested the Court to hold fresh enquiry in
support of its case, but failed to prove the charges against
accused No.1. Looking from any angle, in the impugned
judgment is not sustainable and prays to allow the appeal.
12. On the other hand, the learned Additional S.P.P.
submitted that the judgment and order of sentence passed by
the Trial Court so far as it relates to imposition of lesser
sentence/inadequacy of sentence is against the facts, law and
evidence on record and as such, liable to be set aside. The
learned Trial Judge has convicted accused No.1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 344, 376 and 506
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
11
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, while
imposing the sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has passed
order of sentence only for the offence punishable under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and has not passed any order
regarding the sentence as against the other offences. The
same is perverse and not sustainable in the eye of law. He
would submit that it is well settled principles of law that a
separate sentence has to be passed as against each of the
offences, but the same is not done in the present case and
hence, it calls for intervention by this Court.
13. He would further submit that it is established that
accused No.1 has committed heinous offence of rape and
sexual assault on the prosecutrix, who belonged to SC/ST
community and the punishment prescribed under the SC/ST
Act is life imprisonment. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to
have sentenced the accused No.1 with life imprisonment and
failure to impose the same would result in miscarriage of
justice. The prosecution has proved that accused No.1 has
committed rape offences not only under IPC, but also under
the SC/ST Act and the POCSO Act, which has special
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
12
enactments and which override all other, as including Indian
Penal Code and these offences prescribe punishment for not
less than ten years. The Trial Court has not imposed the
sentence under the SC/ST Act on the ground that accused
No.1 had no intention to take revenge against the prosecutrix
belonging to particular community and his act comes under
the category of private affairs and it is not proved that
accused No.1 having any such intention of taking revenge on
the members of particular community. By giving the said
reason, the Trial Court has not imposed the punishment of
imprisonment for life and thereby imposed only sentence
under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, stating that the other
offences merged with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The said
reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts
and evidence placed on record and therefore it is not
sustainable.
14. He submits that the Trial Court ought to have
imposed life imprisonment on accused No.1, as he has
committed grave offences against the prosecutrix, who was a
minor girl belonging to SC/ST community. This aspect of the
matter has not been properly considered by the Trial Court
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
13
and thereby erred in imposing lesser sentence and prays to
allow the appeal.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/
accused No.1 further submitted that, even though after
arresting accused No.1, a de novo trial was conducted against
him and 22 witnesses were examined, out of which PWs. 1, 2,
4, 9, 11 to 21 and 22 are common witnesses, after finding
that, except official witnesses, the other witnesses including
the complainant and prosecutrix have turned hostile, the trial
Court has relied upon the evidence of the witnesses who have
supported the prosecution case in the earlier case i.e., Special
S.C.24/2013 and based on their evidence, has convicted
accused No.1 and it is prima facie illegal. He further
submitted that, in fact in the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. the evidence of the witnesses who have supported the
prosecution case in the earlier case i.e., Special S.C.24/2013
are not at all put to accused No.1 and as such, the trial court
could not have relied upon the evidence of those witnesses
and he further submitted that accused No.1 was taken by
surprise by so relying upon the evidence of the earlier case
and not referring to their evidence in the statement u/s. 313
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
14
Cr.P.C. and on this ground also he submits that the trial is
vitiated and accused is entitled for acquittal.
16. Before going to the merits of the case, it is
relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 273 of Criminal
Procedure Code, which mandates that, the evidence is to be
taken in the presence of the accused. It reads as follows:
“273. Evidence to be taken in presence of
accused.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, all
evidence taken in the course of the trial or other
proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the
accused, or, when his personal attendance is
dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.”
17. From the provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C., it is
evident that, whatever evidence the court wants to rely upon,
it is to be recorded in the presence of the accused, and only
when his personal attendance is exempted, it can be recorded
in the absence of the accused, but his counsel will be present
and he will cross-examine the witness in the absence of the
accused and while seeking exemption, the learned counsel
representing the accused must specifically state that he will
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
15
not dispute the identity of the accused. It means that in the
absence of the accused, the witness may not be in a position
to identify the accused and therefore, the counsel should give
an undertaking that he is not going to dispute the identity of
the accused.
18. Now coming to the subsequent proceedings
conducted against accused No.1. As rightly pointed out by
learned counsel representing accused No.1, in the earlier
proceedings, all the three accused persons participated in the
trial and in fact accused No.1 has also cross-examined PWs.1
to 21 and after the evidence of PW.21, he has absconded.
After making unsuccessful attempts to trace him, the learned
Special Judge has decided to split up the case as against
accused No.1 and after directing filing of spilt up charge sheet
against him, he has proceeded with the trial against accused
No.2 and 3 and ultimately acquitted them. Immediately after
the disposal of the earlier case resulting in acquittal of accused
No.2 and 3, accused No.1 has surrendered before the Court
and though his application for bail came to be rejected and the
trial was conducted against him afresh by summoning all the
witnesses, all the material witnesses except the official
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
16
witnesses, including the complainant, prosecutrix, her friend
who was accompanied her in the auto rickshaw to some
distance have turned hostile to the prosecution. In spite of
they being treated as hostile and cross-examined by the
prosecution, nothing worthy is elicited to connect their
evidence to the complicity of accused No.1.
19. As rightly argued by the learned counsel
representing accused No.1, in the 313 statement, the learned
Special Judge has referred to the oral testimony of the
witnesses, who are examined in the subsequent trial, who
have all turned hostile. However, while addressing the
argument, the learned Public Prosecutor has made a
submission that, since PWs. 1 to 21 were examined in the
presence of accused No.1 and he has actively participated in
the trial and has also cross-examined them, their evidence
could be relied upon and based on such submissions, the
Special Judge has chosen to consider the evidence of those
witnesses in the earlier trial and relying upon their evidence,
the special Judge has come to the conclusion that the charges
against accused No.1 are proved.
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
17
20. For this the learned Special Judge has relied upon
the provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with
the interpretation clause defines the term ‘Evidence’ –
‘Evidence’ means and includes -,
(1) all statements which the court permits or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
relation to matters of fact under enquiry,
such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records
produced for the inspection of the court,
Such documents are called documentary
evidence.
21. Therefore, the statement of witnesses, which, in
order to consider as evidence should be required to be made
before the Court by the witnesses. Therefore, statements in
the earlier proceedings cannot be relied upon as evidence of
the witnesses except under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian
Evidence Act, which is an exception to the general rule that
the evidence of the witnesses should be direct.
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
18
22. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with
relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent
proceedings, the truth of fact therein stated. It reads as
follows:
“33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in
subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein
stated.–
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial
proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to
take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a
subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the
same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it
states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or
is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way
by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be
obtained without an amount of delay or expense which,
under the circumstances of the case, the Court
considers unreasonable:
Provided– that the proceeding was between the
same parties or their representatives in interest; that
the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right
and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in
issue were substantially the same in the first as in the
second proceeding.”
23. The learned Special Judge has relied upon the
provisions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act to consider
the evidence of those witnesses who have turned hostile in the
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
19
present trial, but have supported the prosecution case in the
earlier proceedings. As the provisions of the Section state,
the evidence of such witnesses can be relied upon only when
the witness is dead, or cannot be found or incapable of giving
evidence or is kept out of the way by the adverse party or if
his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay
or expenses, which, under the circumstances of the case, the
court considers unreasonable. Even though the subsequent
conditions i.e., the proceedings were between the same
parties and the adverse party i.e., accused No.1 in this case,
in the first proceedings had the right and opportunity to cross-
examine and the question in issue was substantially one and
the same in both the proceedings satisfy, the main condition
that the witnesses who are examined in the earlier
proceedings were not able to be examined in the subsequent
proceedings for the reason that the witnesses are dead or they
cannot be found or they have become incapable of giving
evidence or the adverse party has kept them out of the way or
the presence of the witnesses cannot be obtained without an
amount of delay or expenses in securing their presence is not
satisfied. Only if all the conditions specified in Section 33 are
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
20
satisfied, then the provisions of Section 33 could be applied
and the evidence recorded in the earlier proceedings could be
relied upon. However, in the present case, the very fact that
all these witnesses were secured and they were able to
examine before the Court, makes it clear that the provisions of
section 33 could not be applied.
24. Therefore, the learned Special Judge was in error
in relying upon the evidence of the witnesses who were
examined in the earlier proceedings and who have supported
the prosecution case, but have not supported the prosecution
case in the present proceedings and they are treated as
hostile.
25. The common witnesses who are examined for the
prosecution in both cases are PWs. 1, 2, 4, 9, 11 to 21 and
22. Out of them, except PWs.16 to 21, the rest of the
witnesses have not supported the prosecution case including
the complainant, prosecutrix and her friend CW.17 Vaishnavi,
who accompanied her in the autorickshaw to some distance
when the prosecutrix was being kidnapped by accused Nos.1
and 2. However, this will not give authority to the learned
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
21
Special Judge to refer to the evidence of these witnesses who
have turned hostile in the present case, but have supported
the prosecution in the earlier proceedings and rely upon such
evidence, especially when a de novo trial was conducted.
26. Section 299 of Code of Criminal Procedure makes
provision for recording the evidence in the absence of the
accused. Provision is made to safeguard the evidence of the
witnesses who may not be available due to efflux of time, for
various reasons. There may be cases where the accused may
abscond till the prosecution witnesses are either dead or
incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or their
presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay,
expense or inconvenience, which under the circumstances of
the case would be unreasonable and after taking advantage of
the absence of the witnesses, he may surrender and in that
event, the prosecution may not be in a position to get a
conviction against the accused.
27. Therefore, in the cases where the accused has
absconded and after making all the efforts to secure his
presence, if the prosecution is unable to keep the accused
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
22
present before the Court, then it may request the Court to
record the evidence of all those witnesses or at least all the
material witnesses and keep their testimony intact to be used
in future after the accused is secured. Even in such cases,
subsequent to the securing the presence of the accused, once
again the prosecution is required to secure the presence of the
witnesses who are all available and are capable of giving
evidence and the court is required to record their evidence in
the presence of the accused after providing of an opportunity
to cross-examine such witnesses. Only those witnesses who
are dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or
their presence cannot be procured without an amount of
delay, expense or inconvenience, the evidence of such
witnesses which is recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C. could
be relied upon.
28. In the present case, even though in the earlier
proceedings, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 21 were recorded in
the presence of the accused No.1 and he also had the
opportunity to cross-examine them and in fact he has cross-
examined them, still having regard to the fact that charge
against him came to be split up and he was removed from the
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
23
earlier proceedings and the trial was proceeded with against
accused Nos. 2 and 3 only, the earlier evidence cannot be
relied upon by the prosecution or the Court to convict accused
No.1. For this reason only, a fresh trial was conducted against
accused No.1 and all those witnesses who were available were
examined. However, unfortunately, this time, the witnesses
who had supported the prosecution case in the earlier
proceedings have turned hostile. The learned Public
Prosecutor who has cross-examined them has not made any
attempt to place their testimony i.e., certified copies of their
testimony recorded in the earlier proceedings on record and
refer and get them marked. In that way he could have
brought on record their testimony in the earlier proceedings
and thereafter cross-examined them. In that event, the
evidence in the earlier proceedings could have been relied
upon. In the absence of the said exercise, the learned special
judge has erred in relying upon the evidence of those
witnesses in the earlier proceedings, that too without putting
the said evidence in the statement of accused No.1 under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Only from the stage of hearing the
arguments, the Special Judge has thought about relying upon
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
24
the evidence of those witnesses, who have supported the
prosecution case in the earlier proceedings and based on their
evidence, the learned special judge has proceeded to convict
accused No.1. When the evidence of all those witnesses who
have supported the prosecution case in the earlier proceedings
is not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same
cannot be used against him.
29. In this regard, the learned counsel representing
accused No.1 has relied upon the following decisions, wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the significance of
recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
and in case of failure, the Court cannot rely upon such
evidence which is not specifically put to the accused. These
decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Since the
trial Court has failed to refer to the accused in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the evidence of PWs. 1 to 21
recorded in the earlier trial, it was not open to the trial Court
to rely upon it, to hold that the charges levelled against
accused No.1 are proved. On this ground also the impugned
judgment is not sustainable.
i. (2006) 12 SCC 306
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
25
(Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of
Punjab)
ii. (1984) 4 SCC 116
(Sharad Birdhichant Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra)
iii. 1993 SCC (Crl.) 824
(Usha K. Pillai Vs. Raj K. Srinivas and
Others)
30. Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned,
admittedly, all the material witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case including the prosecutrix, her father, who
has filed the complaint as well as her friend, who accompanied
her in the autorickshaw for some distance. Except the
evidence of official witnesses, there is no material to connect
the accused No.1 to the charges leveled against him. For this
reason only, the learned trial Judge has ventured to rely upon
the evidence of those witnesses in the earlier case. Therefore,
based upon the evidence of these witnesses, who have turned
hostile, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the
allegation against accused No.1. He is the main accused and
the allegations against accused No.2 and 3 are that, they
helped accused No.1 in kidnapping the prosecutrix and that he
raped her while wrongfully confining her. When in spite of
having the material witnesses supporting the prosecution
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
26
case, the trial against accused Nos. 2 and 3 has ended in
acquittal, in the absence of evidence of material witnesses, we
hold that accused No.1 is also entitled for the benefit of
acquittal.
31. Thus from the above discussion, we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgment and order of conviction of
accused No.1 based on the evidence recorded in the earlier
proceedings is not sustainable. Consequently, the Criminal
Appeal No.100126/2018 filed by accused No.1 deserves to be
allowed, while Criminal Appeal No.100231/2018 filed by State
for enhancement of the punishment is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Appeal No.100126/2018 filed by
accused No.1 is allowed. The judgment
and order of conviction dated 27.02.2018
in Spl.SCST No.10/2016 on the file of the
II Additional District and Sessions and
Special Judge at Dharwad is set aside.
Accused No.1 is acquitted of all the
charges. He is undergoing sentence. He
shall be released forthwith, if his presence
is not required in any other case.
CRL.A.NO.100126/2018
C/W CRL.A.NO.100231/2018
27
ii) Office is directed to send intimation to the
concerned jail authorities.
iii) Consequently, Criminal Appeal
No.100231/2018 filed by the State for
enhancement of sentence is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/gab