Trial court cannot act on hunches, instincts and conjectures: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently acquitted a person accused for offences under Sections 344 (wrongful confinement for ten or more days) 366A (procuration of minor girl) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after observing that the trial court had erred in concluding that the charges against the accused were proved beyond all reasonable doubt [Ramesh Irappa Mutyanatti and Anr. vs The State of Karnataka] .Justice Rajesh Rai K reiterated the position of law that while appreciating evidence in a criminal trial, the Court has to presume the innocence of the accused where there is a doubt or if two views are possible.In that background, the Court determined that the benefit of doubt had to be extended to the accused. It also added that the trial court cannot act on hunches, instincts and conjectures while convicting."The trial Court cannot act on hunches 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," the High Court stated..The Court was hearing an appeal by two persons against an order of a trial court that convicted them for the offence under Sections 344 and 366A read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.They contended that the trial court judgment was illegal and perverse as evidence was not properly appreciated. They informed the High Court that all the witnesses, including the alleged victim, had turned hostile and that the conviction was based on the evidence of police officials.They also informed the Court that the prosecution had not produced any document to establish the age of the victim.Further, they underlined that the trial judge acquitted then for offence Section 376 (rape) of IPC and hence, they should not have been convicted under Section 366A..On the other hand, High Court Government Pleader VS Kalasurmath contended that there was no illegality in the judgment as it was based on evidence available on record.He said that although the material witnesses, the girl and her father (the complainant), had turned hostile, the girl's mother had deposed that the girl was kidnapped and found in another town twenty days later. He also argued that as per law settled by the Supreme Court, the police officials' statements could not be discarded merely because they were police officials. Further, he informed the Court that a medical certificate proved that the girl was between 15 and 16 years of age. Therefore, according to him, the conviction was right..The Court noted that under Section 366A, inducing a minor girl to move from one place to another with the intent to force or seduce her into illicit intercourse with another person is an offence. In that background, the Court observed that there was no mention of any other person in the sequence of allegations. It also recorded that all material witnesses had turned hostile and were not supporting the prosecution's case..The Court further noted that the trial judge convicted the accused relying solely on evidence of police officials and the doctor who examined the minor girl.The doctor's evidence said that according to a dentist, the girl was 12 to 15 years old, and according to a radiologist, she was 16 to 18 years old. Given the discrepancy, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the girl's age..Further, the Court noted that the trial judge had acquitted the accused of rape and strangely convicted them for the offence under Section 366A without any reasoning with regard to how the offence was proved..The Court concluded that the trial court reached its conclusions erroneously. It said that it was the prosecution's job to prove its case beyond all doubt and that by relying on stray admission in cross examination of hostile witnesses, the accused could not be convicted.Hence, it said aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the accused of all charges levelled against them. .[Read Judgment]