Accused cannot be convicted on stray admissions of hostile witnesses and presumptions: Karnataka HC

BENGALURU: By relying on the stray admissions made in the cross examination of hostile witnesses and by assumption and presumption, the accused cannot be convicted for the charges leveled against them,the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court has ruled in a recent judgement, while acquitting two brothers.
Residents of Theerthkunde village in Belagavi taluk, the two brothers were accused of kidnapping a teenaged girl on a motorcycle in March 2011 with the help of others ,so as to see that she is married to one amongst the two siblings.It is also alleged that she was wrongfully confined for about 20 days at different places and was subjected to sexual assault.
On September 23,2014, the Sessions court at Belagavi acquitted them of charges under section 376 of IPC .However, they were convicted for offences under section 366 A of IPC( abduction) and imposed with seven years imprisonment with Rs 20,000 fine. In addition, they were also held guilty under section 344 of IPC ( wrongful confinement) and imposed with one year simple imprisonment with Rs 10,000 as fine. They challenged the said verdict, contending that all material witnesses including the victim-girl, have been turned hostile to the prosecution case.
Allowing their appeal, Justice Rajesh Rai K has pointed out that victim herself turned hostile to the prosecution case and the father and mother of the victim girl also turned hostile to the prosecution case by categorically denying the very incident of kidnap and forcible sexual assault by the accused no.1, ie, the younger one who intended to marry her.
"In my considered opinion, the trial Judge has erroneously came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against accused are proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to prove it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts and by relying on the stray admissions made in the cross examination of hostile witnesses and by assumption and presumption, the accused cannot be convicted for the charges leveled against them. It is the settled position of law by the Supreme court in catena of judgments while appreciating evidence in a criminal trial, the court has to presume the innocence of the accused where there is a doubt or two views are possible. The benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. The trial court cannot act on hunchas instincts and conjectures while convicting the accused. The trial Court has to appreciate evidence in such a manner by considering the contradictions, inconsistency, exaggerations and embellishments" Justice Rai has noted in his order.
"The trial Judge convicted the accused solely relying on the evidence of police officers and the doctor who conducted examination of the victim. By perusal of the evidence of the doctor, in his cross examination, he clearly deposed that according to the dentist the age of the victim is 12 to 15 years and according to the radiologist the age of the victim girl is 16 to 18 years. Admittedly, the prosecution did not produce any documents to ascertain the age of the victim girl. In the circumstances, when the doctor himself deposed two versions in respect of the age of the victim then, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim girl that she was minor at the time of alleged incident. It is also settled position of law that in a criminal trial, the testimony of official witness needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible the same shall be corroborated in material particulars and the evidence of independent witnesses " the judge further pointed out in his order while setting aside the judgement of the sessions court.