Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ramesh Irappa Mutyannatti and Channappa Irappa Jamboti, were convicted by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No. 413/2011 for offences under Section 366(A) read with Section 34 IPC (kidnapping to compel marriage, etc.) and Section 344 read with Section 34 IPC (wrongful confinement for ten or more days). They were sentenced to seven years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 each for the first offence, and one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for the second offence. The prosecution case was that on 18.03.2011 at about 4.00 p.m., the appellants kidnapped a minor girl from Santibastawad and wrongfully confined her. The trial court convicted them based on the evidence of the victim and other witnesses. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad examined the evidence and found it to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration. The victim's testimony was contradictory, and the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's version. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping - Section 366(A) read with Section 34 IPC - Prosecution failed to prove that the accused induced the minor victim to go from her lawful guardianship for illicit intercourse - Evidence of victim and witnesses inconsistent and contradictory - Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 2-10). B) Criminal Law - Wrongful Confinement - Section 344 read with Section 34 IPC - No credible evidence that the accused wrongfully confined the victim for more than ten days - Medical evidence did not support prosecution case - Held that accused are entitled to acquittal (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 366(A) and 344 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.09.2014 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in S.C. No. 413/2011 is set aside. The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences under Sections 366(A) and 344 read with Section 34 IPC. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Inconsistent evidence
- Lack of corroboration
- Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Conviction cannot be based on weak evidence
