Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Kidnapping Case, Citing Victim’s Conflicting Accounts Of Where Accused Took Her

The State appealed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the trial court’s acquittal of Veeresh of an offence under Section 366 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the victim, a minor, on 14 August 2011.

At trial, the victim gave differing accounts of where the accused took her and did not support the prosecution’s case fully; the other material witnesses also did not establish the alleged events from personal knowledge.

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding material contradictions and insufficient evidence to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence. If the trial court’s view is a plausible one on the evidence, the appellate court cannot reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted where the judgment is perverse, overlooks or misreads material evidence, or the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka.

On reappreciation, the Court found that the victim’s trial testimony differed from the account attributed to her in the complaint and other evidence, including as to whether she was taken to the accused’s house or to Majestic Bus Stand.

The remaining witnesses largely recounted information received from the victim, while the mahazar witnesses did not support the prosecution and the complaint was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that the trial court’s assessment was a plausible view of the evidence and disclosed no factual or legal error warranting appellate interference.

It also fixed the amicus curiae’s remuneration at Rs. 10,000 and directed the Registry to pay it.