- 1 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MAY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100062 OF 2024 BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR DHARWAD TOWN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD , THROUGH THE ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADLL. SPP) AND: SHRI. SHANKAR S/O. PARASHURAM GOLLAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: P K WORK, R/O. 3RD CROSS, GOLLAR COLONY, TQ: DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.R.PATIL, ADVOCATE; SRI.S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT/VICTIM GUARDIAN (HER FATHER)) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CRPC SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED BY THE IIND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE DHARWAD IN SPL.SC.NO.33/2020 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2023 PASSED BY THE II ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SPL.SC.NO.33/2020 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 342, 376 AND 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.05.23 11:30:28 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 02nd January 2023, password in Spl. SC No.33 of 2020 by the II Additional District & Sessions and Special Judge at Dharwad (“trial Court” for short). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 15th September 2021 complaint was given by Huligeppa-PW2 resident of Gollara colony as per Exhibit P1. Informant is the father of the victim. It is alleged in the complaint that he is doing scrap business. On 15th September 2020 at about 3.00 PM, he returned from work and his wife informed him that their daughter had gone out and not turned back. So he has gone to the house of his in-laws who told that victim has visited their house between 12.30 and 2.00 PM and she has returned to home. After receiving the said information, he searched for his daughter in all possible places and also searched for her in the vicinity and also visited the house of respondent situated in the - 3 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 same area where they noticed the presence of victim, who was weeping. The victim, after noticing, their parents came running towards them, and disclosed that while she was returning to home from grandmother's house, the accused took her to his house and gave the mobile phone to her and speaking to her slowly undressed her, and inserted his private part in her private part. At that time victim felt pain and objected, accused hold her tightly and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her and also gave threat to her not to disclose the said act to anybody. Upon getting information, the informant approached Dharwad Town Police Station and gave complaint as per Exhibit P1. 4. On the basis of the complaint, Police registered the case and took up investigation and upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children under Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”). After submission of charge-sheet, the Special Judge has taken cognizance against the accused for the commission of offences and case came to be registered in Special SC No.33 of 2020. - 4 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 On hearing charges, the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused, having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses as PWs1 to 19, 28 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P 28 and marked nine material objects as per MOs1 to 9. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused has totally denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him, but he has filed written statement along with documents, but he has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf. Having heard on both sides, trial Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal. 6. Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment and order of - 5 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. On perusal of evidence of PW1, it clearly discloses as to accused committing offence punishable under Section 342, 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The trial Court has not assigned proper reasons to discard the evidence of PW1. Victim being the child of eight years, had clearly given evidence more specifically stated that while she was returning from her grandmother's house, accused on the way caught hold of her, took her to his house and tied her legs and hands with rope, and he removed his trousers and also undressed her and committed forceful sexual intercourse. It is submitted that the act of the accused which was immediately disclosed by the victim to her parents, viz. PW2, her father-PW12, her grandmother and CW3-her mother and their evidence before the Court corroborates the evidence of PW1. The learned Additional SPP would submit that there is no believable evidence in the story of defence taken by the accused, and there are no reasons for making false allegation against accused as alleged by him, but the evidence given by the victim and other witnesses is the natural evidence. It is further submitted that mere evidence of the medical officer-PW14 with - 6 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 respect to intact of the hymen of the victim is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of the victim. The victim being the child of eight years and merely because her hymen was intact, would not give scope to interpret that she was not subjected to any type of illegal sexual intercourse. The trial Court has committed an error in not considering the fact that all the witnesses are illiterates and it is quite natural that there would be some discrepancies in their evidence, but the trial Court has to note that their evidence will not go to the root of the case to disbelieve the illegal act committed by the accused. The evidence of the victim is corroborated by the evidence of PW10- Ravi Gollar, PW11-Yellavva and other witnesses. The evidence of the victim alone is believable one and it inspires confidence. The evidence of the victim clearly discloses that it is a natural evidence and are the true facts of illegal act committed by the accused. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The special Judge has totally ignored the provisions of Section 29 & 30 of the POCSO Act which is a statutory presumption and the same shall be drawn against the accused. The reversal burden on the accused has to be discharged by the accused. The trial Court has totally ignored this provision and has not drawn the - 7 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 statutory presumption which is mandatory to be drawn against the accused. He would further submit that the learned trial Judge has not drawn the presumption, which are mandatory and decide the case like an ordinary criminal case and has mechanically acquitted the accused which calls for interference by this Court in this appeal. On these grounds, he sought to the appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri S.B.Doddagoudar, appearing for the accused, would submit that the accused has submitted his written statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, narrating the facts. Complainant has filed false complaint against the accused. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and record in accordance with law and facts and submitted that there are no materials to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal and accordingly sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of the material placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Court - 8 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 suffers from legal infirmities requiring this court to intercede? 2. What order? 9. Our answer to the above points would be as under: Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: as per final order Regarding Point No.1: 10. Before adverting to the actual facts of the case and appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to refer the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and power of Appellate Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 11. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC ONLINE SC 676, at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is held thus: “23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: - 9 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on - 10 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 12. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported in 2019 SCC ONLINE 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it is held as under: “16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable. The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well-established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. …” 13. In the case of HARI RAM & OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2000 SCC ONLINE 933, at paragraph 4 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “4. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan - 11 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 on the other hand contended that the power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal is in no way different from the power while hearing an appeal against conviction and the Court, therefore was fully justified in re-appreciating the entire evidence, upon which the order of acquittal was based. The High Court having examined the reasons of the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PWs 6 & 7 and having arrived at the conclusion, that those reasons are in the realm of conjectures and there has been gross miscarriage of justice and the mis- appreciation of the evidence on record is the basis for acquittal, was fully entitled to set aside an order of acquittal and no error can be said to have been committed. It is too well settled that the power of the High Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and it had full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it feels that it would sitting as a trial court, have taken the other view. While re- appreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the learned trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of - 12 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice.…” 14. In the case of STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISTOORA RAM reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE 684, at paragraph 8 of the judgment it is held as under: “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 15. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has - 13 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 16. We have examined the material place before us. It is the case of the prosecution the father of the victim lodged complaint that on 15th September 2020 at about 3.00 PM, he returned came back from work his wife informed him that their daughter had gone out and has not returned. So he has gone to the house of his in-laws who told that victim was there in house between 12.30 and 2.00 PM and she has returned to home. After searching for his daughter in all possible places, he visited the house of respondent and noticed victim there who was weeping. The victim, after noticing their parents, came running towards them, and disclosed that while she was returning to home from grandmother's house, the accused took her to his house and gave the mobile phone to her and speaking to getting himself undressed, disrobed her, and inserted his private part in hers. When she felt pain and objected, accused hold her tightly and committed forceful sexual intercourse and also gave threat to her saying not to disclose the said act to anybody. Upon getting information, the - 14 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 informant approached Dharwad Town Police Station and gave complaint as per Exhibit P1. 17. To prove the case, prosecution in all 19 witnesses examined as PWS 1 to 19, 28 documents are been marked as Exhibit P1 to P28 and nine material objects are marked as MOs1 to 9. 18. To prove the actual age of the victim, prosecution has got examined PW15-Dr Fakru Hussain Mummigatti. He is the Chairman of Kids Galaxy English Medium School, Dharwad. He has deposed as to the issuance of study certificate Exhibit P18 and Transfer Certificate Exhibit P2 and he has also deposed as to the birth certificate of the victim and progress report as per Exhibits P21 & P22. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has held that the prosecution has proved that the age of victim was of below 18 years as on the date of the alleged incident. 19. CW6-victim is examined as PW1. She has deposed in her evidence that CW1 & CW7 are her parents and her father is doing petty business. She is aged about 8 to 9 years. She is studying in second standard at Kids Campus School near Mosque, Dharwad. Her house is near the house of the accused. - 15 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 Her house is located on the 3rd Cross and her grandmother's house is located on the 4th Cross. She has further deposed that she had been to her grandmother's house in the afternoon after finishing lunch in their house. She and her friends were playing in front of their grandmother's house and her grandmother was inside the house. They played there till 2.00 PM, and when she was returning to home from her grandmother's house, accused has caught hold of her hands and took her to his house. Accused has not given any mobile handset to her to play. Accused tied her hands and legs with rope and he got himself undressed. Accused has put his private part into her’s. She suffered pain and inconvenience. Accused abused her and slapped her and she was there in his house for about three hours. Her parents and her grandmother took her to their house and her mother smeared ointment and her father lodged the complaint. Police took her to the hospital and she has stated as to what happened, before the medical officer. Medical officer has taken her clothes and she had given the statement before the Court. She has identified the material objects MO1 and MO2. She has deposed as to Police taking photos at the time of recording her statement. - 16 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 20. CW1-Hulegappa Gollar, who is examined as PW2 as stated that CW6 is his daughter and CW7 is his wife. He knows CWs 8 to 13 and CW7 died about five months back. He has further deposed that his in-laws house is located on 3rd Cross and his house is located on the 4th Cross of Gollar colony, Dharwad. He has deposed that his daughter was between 8 to 9 years age. His daughter used to visit his in-laws house to play. School was closed due to COVID-19 pandemic. He used to go for work between 10.00 AM and 6.00 PM. He has deposed that at about 7 to 8 months back when he returned home at 3.00 PM, he enquired about the children. She told that CW6 has gone to her parents house for playing but had not returned. He had called his mother-in-law over phone who told that she was not there and she thought that the child might have gone to her house. Then they searched for their daughter in different places between 3.00 to 4.00 PM. He was planning to lodge the complaint. At the time, he came to know that when his mother-in-law enquired with accused about the grand-daughter he told that she was in his house. Later, all of them went to the accused house, there the victim was weeping. She told before her mother that accused has removed her clothes and committed penetrative sexual assault upon her. Then they - 17 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 searched for the accused and could not trace him. Later he lodged complaint with the police as per Exhibit P1. She had shown the spot to the police after lodging complaint. Police have prepared Panchanama as per Exhibit P2. He has deposed that he do not know the date of birth of his daughter. Police have recorded the statement of his daughter in his presence. At this stage, this witness was treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court. In the cross-examination made by the Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that incident has taken place on 15th September 2020 and his daughter was sitting in the house of the accused weeping, and when they went there, she came running towards them and told him about the incident as also the threat given by the accused to her. 21. CW2-Durgappa Kabbinavar and CW3-Lohit Gollar examined as PWs3 & 4, respectively are attesters to Mahazar. They have deposed in their evidence as to the police having conducted Panchanama as per Exhibit P2. These witnesses have been treated as hostile witnesses and are cross-examined by the Public prosecutor. - 18 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 22. CW4-Huligeppa Gollar, said to be the panch witness to Exhibit P6, is examined as PW5. He has deposed as to the seizure Panchanama Exhibit P6 and also seizure of material objects MOs3 to 9. 23. CW9-Arjun Unakal, CW8-Durgappa Gollar, CW10- Kamalavva Saunshi, said to be the witnesses are examined as PW6 to 8 respectively. All these witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Even during their cross-examination by the public prosecutor, after treating them as hostile witnesses with the permission of the Court, they have not supported the case and have categorically denied as to the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which are marked as Exhibits P10 to P12 respectively. 24. CW11-Durgappa Bendigeri, CW12-Ravi Gollar, CW13-Yellavva Gollar, CW15-Huligemma Gollar, examined as PWs9 to 12 respectively. All these witnesses are circumstantial witnesses. 25. CW23-Dr Mayur Kadam has deposed as to the examination of the victim and issuance of preliminary report as per Exhibit P14. She has also deposed in her evidence that she - 19 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 has given final opinion certificate Exhibit P15 and as per RFSL report, she has given final opinion that there is no evidence of suggestive or recent sexual intercourse. 26. CW22-Dr. Neeta Bilagi, examined as PW14, has deposed that she has physically and genetically examined the victim. She has not noticed any external or internal injuries on the private part of the victim. Hymen is intact and. After obtaining the RFSL report, she has given final opinion as per Exhibit P 17 that there are no evidences of sign of recent sexual intercourse. Further, she has deposed that there is no possibility of rape upon the victim due to intact of hymen and if the private part of a man has entered the private part of a girl, hymen will be torn. 27. CW24-Dr. Fakru Hussain Mummigatti, the Chairman of Kids Galaxy English Medium School, Dharwad has as to the issuance of Exhibits P20 & 21. 28. CW25-Ratna Bharamagouda, Police Inspector, Women Police Station Hubballi has been examined as PW16, CW18-Dhanraj Jadhav has been examined as PW17 and CW26, Mahesh Basapur, Police Inspector, Marihal Police Station has been examined as PW18, CW 27 Shridhar Satare has been - 20 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 Exhibit as PW19. They have deposed as to their respective investigation. 29. On careful scrutiny of the entire evidence placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that the evidence of victim has not been supported by medical evidence. Now, the question would be whether the remaining evidence of prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and believable, and the same is sufficient to convict accused for the alleged commission of offence. In this regard, CW7-Lakshmi, mother of victim has passed away during the pendency of his case and hence she is not examined. 30. In Exhibit P1 filed by PW1-Huligeppa, it is stated that on enquiry with the victim, she told that the accused took her to his home, gave Mobile phone to her and undressed and then committed rape. In the examination-in-chief of PW1, she has clearly stated that accused has not given mobile to her to play. Exhibit P1 does not reveal that accused has abused the victim and slapped her. Even in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, she has deposed that the accused has tied her hands and legs with rope. In the evidence of PW1, she has deposed that accused has tied her - 21 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 hand and legs with rope, but the same has not been disclosed in the complaint Exhibit P1. Complaint-Exhibit P1 came to be filed on 15th September 2020, statement of the victim under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 7th October 2020. The evidence of PW1 during trial, was recorded on 24th August 2021. PW1 has improved her statement from time to time as to tying of her hands and legs with the rope, which she has not disclosed to her parents at the time of narrating the incident on 15th September 2020. 31. PW2-Huligeppa Gollar, father of the victim has not whispered anything in his examination-in-chief as to accused giving mobile handset to his daughter. He has also not deposed in his evidence that the accused as tied the hands and legs of his daughter with a rope as stated by PW1, which is not disclosed in Exhibit P1-complaint. 32. PW16-Smt. Ratna Bharamagoudar, Police Inspector, Women Police Station, has deposed in her evidence that the victim has not stated before her as to the accused tying her hands and legs with rope. She has also deposed that the victim has not stated in her statement before her that her - 22 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 mother has brought her from the house of the accused to the house of the complainant. 33. PW18-Madesh Basapur, Police Inspector, Marihal Police Station, Belagavi has stated in his evidence that the victim has not stated before him about the incident as per the statement recorded by him. CW12 has not stated before him in the statement that he has met the complainant on 15th September 2020 between three and 4 PM. Upon enquiry with CW1, his wife and victim about the incident, he has as deposed that CW12 has not stated before him in the statement that victim came and informed the incident to him. He has further deposed that CW12 has not stated before him that victim informed about removal of clothes and inserting his private part into her private part or the accused giving threat to her. The victim has not stated any incident in detail before CW12 directly. 34. The investigating officers who are examined before the Court, have not clarified as to the inconsistent statement of the material witness, material omissions and contradictions and subsequent improvements. This inconsistent evidence of the material witnesses, material emissions and contradictions as to - 23 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 the incident as alleged by the prosecution, creates doubt as to the act of the accused. The written statement made by the accused, will create a reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the accused. There is no legally acceptable, convincing, cogent, and corroborative evidence. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has rightly observed that it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused. 35. On re-appreciation, re-evaluation of the entire evidence and record independently, we do not find any error/legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Hence, keeping in mind for judgments and for the reason for stated, we answer Point No.1 in the negative. Regarding Point No.2: 36. For the reasons aforestated, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is dismissed; 2. Judgment of acquittal dated 02nd January 2023 passed in special SC No.33 of 2020 by the II - 24 - CRL.A No.100062/2024 Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad, is confirmed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT:VH