( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides at considerable length because the charge in this case is a serious one under Section 392 IPC and the learned Addl. SPP submits that apart from the victim PW3 that there are other two eyewitnesses PWs 4 and 7, who know the accused, who have identified him and despite all these three witnesses the trial Court has acquitted the accused. His submission is that the accused, who pretended to be a photographer and came to a traditional social ceremony for taking photographs, took advantage of the fact that the girl PW3 was sitting alone in front of the house, that he snatched all the three gold chains that she was wearing around her neck, one of which was a shot chain which was tied something like a choker and the other two were long chains hanging almost upto the waist. PW3 raised an alarm, the accused was chased, but he disappeared in the darkness. The learned Addl. SPP submits that this was a social function, that the accused is not a stranger, that the incident has been witnessed by PWs 4 and 7, who have corroborated the evidence of PW3 and that consequently, this is a case where a straight conviction ought to have been recorded. ( 2 ) AS against this, the respondents learned counsel submits that the entire case is framed up because the accused is a journalist, he had gone to photograph certain incriminating evidence relating to the sale of illicit liquor, that he was attacked, his camera was snatched and that he has lodged a complaint with regard to the incident, which case is still not decided. Regardless of this defence, what he submitted is that the trial Court has carefully analysed the evidence and disbelieved it and Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy, the learned counsel who represents the respondent submitted that in the absence of any recovery and in the absence of any independent evidence, no interference is called for in this case. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides on merits of the case and we have also perused the records. ( 4 ) CERTAIN facts do stand out in this case. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides on merits of the case and we have also perused the records. ( 4 ) CERTAIN facts do stand out in this case. The first is that the trial Court has record a significant conclusion that if the three gold chains were forcibly snatched from the neck of the PW3 that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that injuries would have resulted, because it is impossible for any one to snatch three gold chains at a time unless a lot of force is used and if this is done, injuries to the victim would be inevitable. This is undoubtedly a tell-tale circumstance because the evidence of PW3 itself is otherwise doubtful as she has indicated a wrong date of the incident. PWs 4 and 7 are family members and they have mechanically supported the version of PW3, but the fact of the matter remains that the prosecution has no explanation for the non-recovery of the items in question. The IO has sought to put forward a plea that this is a case in which the accused made a voluntary statement to the effect that he had sold the ornaments to some unknown persons at the bus stand and used up the money. This statement is, prima facie, unbelievable. Particularly in a case of theft, robbery and dacoity, the most important evidence is recovery evidence and the Courts are even required to deal with a host of cases where the Police take the easy way out and plant the evidence through the so called receiver by attributing the voluntary statement to the accused that he had pointed out the person and the property. In this background, if three valuable gold items were the subject matter of the offence and the Police were unable to recover the same, this only leads to a level of doubt that is considerable. What compounds the entire matter is that this was a traditional ceremony that is celebrated for the coming of age and at an event of this type where a large number of persons are present and the place is lighted up, it is quite impossible to accept the version that a known person would snatch the jewalry from the girl, who is the central figure of the celebrations. The entire prosecution case not only raises serious doubt, but also suffers from extreme credibility problems. ( 5 ) THIS case raises an interesting legal paradox in so far as the complaint was lodged against the accused, the offence was registered and he came to be arrested, his camera, which has allegedly been left behind, was recovered by the Police and this is again a circumstance that would establish his presence at that place. It is also a circumstance against the accused for the simple reason that if he had left hurriedly without his camera, the question arises as to whether or not the prosecution version that he had committed an offence and just taken to his heels is worthy of acceptance or not. In a situation of this nature, undoubtedly, the methodology of establishing ones innocence is by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, but there are also situations in which the witnesses are either sufficiently seasoned or clever enough not to really falter in the course of the cross-examination. In such a situation, it is equally open to the accused to establish his innocence, which in law is required to be done, only to the extent of preponderance of probability, as the law does not cast on the accused the under to establish his innocence beyond reasonable doubt. In law, the only available opportunity for the accused to explain the position and to explain his case is in the course of the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and in our considered view, if as has happened in the present case, within the frame work of the facts adduced by the prosecution, the accused is able to make out a parallel case which appeals to the Court, then that version will have to be seriously considered. We have before us the prosecution version, which is weak and suffers from serious lacunae and at the same time we have the explanation from the accused which does indicate that his version could be acceptable. First of all is the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. We would normally disentitle the prosecution from demanding a conviction and this position gets considerably weaker and watered down, where the accused has satisfactorily explained the facts that are alleged against him. First of all is the fact that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. We would normally disentitle the prosecution from demanding a conviction and this position gets considerably weaker and watered down, where the accused has satisfactorily explained the facts that are alleged against him. This is the area of law that the Criminal Courts ought not to overlook particularly in view of the fact that there is a tendency to mechanically disregard the accused statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) ON a total reappraisal of the record, in our considered view, the material before the Court adduced by the prosecution, is insufficient and impossible for the purpose of sustaining a conviction. The order of acquittal will, therefore, have to be upheld. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. ( 7 ) IN the course of the hearing of this case it has come to our notice that the camera, which has been produced, admittedly belongs to the accused. It is not an incriminating item and since the Court has recorded an order of acquittal, the camera ought to have been rightly ordered to be returned to the accused. To that extent, the order of the trial Court will stand modified and we direct the trial Court to return the camera MO1, to the accused. ( 8 ) THIS is a case in which it is clearly established that the institution of the prosecution was motivated and that it was unjustified. The accused is a Journalist and it is quite possible that he had gone to that place in order to expose the alleged racket in illicit liquor dealings and as per his defence, that this was the reason why he was attacked. For the damage and injury done to him, it is only fair that the complainant be ordered to compensate him. The compensation is quantified at Rs. 10,000/ -. The trial court to issue notice to the complainant to deposit the said amount with the trial court within two weeks of the date of the notice, failing which the amount be recovered from the complainant. On recovery, notice be issued to the accused and the said amount paid over to him as compensation. ( 9 ) AS far as IA-I is concerned, in view of the grounds set out, the delay is condoned and IA-I is allowed. On recovery, notice be issued to the accused and the said amount paid over to him as compensation. ( 9 ) AS far as IA-I is concerned, in view of the grounds set out, the delay is condoned and IA-I is allowed. --- *** --- .