Karnataka HC Upholds Acquittal Of Man Accused Of Kidnapping Minor After Mother And Victim Say They Did Not Know Him

In brief

The question

Whether the State had established grounds for appellate interference with the judgment of acquittal

The court held

The Court answered the question of appellate interference in the negative and dismissed the State’s appeal.

It also directed

The acquittal of the accused was left undisturbed.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the complainant’s minor daughter from her home on 16 April 2012 with the intention of marrying her.

pp. 2–4, paras 1, 3–4

The charge-sheet was filed under Section 366-A IPC; after trial, the L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, acquitted the accused on 24 February 2016.

pp. 2–4, paras 1, 3–4

The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 378 CrPC.

pp. 2–4, paras 1, 3–4

At trial, nine witnesses were examined and six exhibits marked.

p. 3, para 4

The accused denied the prosecution case in his Section 313 CrPC statement and did not adduce defence evidence.

p. 3, para 4

02Issues

i.Whether the State had established grounds for appellate interference with the judgment of acquittal

p. 6, para 7

ii.Whether the trial court’s acquittal could be reversed on the evidence and material on record

pp. 7–8, para 9

03Law Applied

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

pp. 7–8, para 9

If the trial court’s view is a plausible one, the appellate court cannot reverse the acquittal merely because another view is possible; interference is justified where the judgment is perverse, materially misreads or omits evidence, or the evidence permits only a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

pp. 7–8, para 9

The Court relied on Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433, Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581.

pp. 7–8, para 9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 378 Section 313

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 366

04Reasoning

On reappreciating the evidence, the Court noted that PW1 and PW3, the mahazar witnesses, did not support the prosecution; PW2, the victim’s mother, stated that she did not know the accused; and PW5, the victim, likewise stated that she did not know him.

pp. 9–10, paras 11–12

PW4 and PW7 did not support the prosecution, while PW8 gave no evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence.

pp. 9–10, paras 11–12

The Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s assessment and held that the State had not shown that the acquittal was perverse or that only a finding of guilt was possible.

pp. 9–10, paras 11–12