JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011 and whereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860. 2. Whereas, this appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court and acquit the accused for the aforesaid offence amongst the grounds urged therein. 3. Heard learned counsel Sri.A.N.Radha Krishna for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP for the State. 4. Perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011. 5. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under : It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that on 10.11.2010 at around 7.00 p.m, PW.6 – Kum.Preethi who is the victim girl had been to the house of PW.4 – Smt.G.Selva who is aged about 75 years being tuition teacher and after attending tuition class in her house in the limits of Munisamappa Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru City while she was returning to the house that the accused alleged to having intention to marry her, abducted her from there and made her to confinement in house of one Venkatesh who is his friend. In pursuance of the act of the accused on filing the complaint by PW.5 – Lokesh as per Ex.P4, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5 by PW.9 – Puttalakkaiah who is working as ASI in R.T.Nagar Police Station. Subsequent to registration of crime, PW.13 – Mahadevaswamy who is the investigating officer took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and during investigation, he drew mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the presence of PW.1 – Venkatesh and PW.3 – Muniraju and so also drew mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PW.4 – Smt.G.Selva and PW.5 – Lokesh. 6. Subsequent to completion of investigation by PW.13 being the investigating officer and he had laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court and case has been committed by the committal Court by passing committal order by complying the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to the committal of the case by committal Court to the trial Court, case was registered against the accused in S.C.No.305/2011. 7. 7. After committal of case by the committal Court that the trial Court heard on the part of prosecution and defence counsel relating to framing of charges and consequently framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 506, 366 and 342 of IPC and whereby the accused declined the charges leveled against him. Subsequent to framing of charges that the case was put up for trial and accordingly, prosecution has examined in all PWs.1 to 13 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to 9 and closed its side. 8. Subsequent to closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused were subjected to examination as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statement appeared against him, whereby the accused declined the truth of evidence of prosecution adduced so far. After recording 313 statement of the accused, the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to completion of the evidence of the prosecution and on hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence counsel the trial Court having convinced by the evidence held conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC. It is this judgment which has been challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his argument has taken me through the evidence of PW.1 – Venkatesh and PW.3 – Muniraju who are the panch witnesses secured by PW.13, being the investigating officer who drew the mahazar at Exs.P1 at the house of one Venkatesh where the accused alleged to have confined the victim girl – in his house. But the aforesaid PW.1 and PW.3 did not supported the case of the prosecution relating to fulcrum of mahazar at Ex.P1. But the same has not been appreciated by the trial Court and even the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt relating to the fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P1 which was conducted by PW.13 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and so also mahazar at Ex.P3 which was conducted by PW.13 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. 10. PW.2 – Parashurama has been subjected to examination on part of the prosecution relating to abduction of PW.6 – Kum. Preethi for the purpose of marriage as alleged. 10. PW.2 – Parashurama has been subjected to examination on part of the prosecution relating to abduction of PW.6 – Kum. Preethi for the purpose of marriage as alleged. But PW.6 did not supported the case of prosecution absolutely relating to the allegation made in Ex.P4 of the complaint made by her father and so also fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. But PW.2 has been subjected to examination on part of prosecution and got marked his contradictory statement at Ex.P2. The aforesaid evidence even though has been facilitated by the prosecution, but the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective manner. Therefore, in this appeal, it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence, if not, the accused who is the gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall be a miscarriage of justice. 11. The primary ground of the argument urged by the learned counsel even referring to the evidence of PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who is the victim girl and alleged that she was subjected to medical examination by PW.12 – Dr. B.M.Nagaraj at Dr. B.R Ambedkar Medical Hospital at Bengaluru and he had issued medical report of the victim PW.6 as per Ex.P6 and so also medically examined the accused and issued medical report at Ex.P7. These reports have been secured by PW.13 – Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused. The investigating officer who subjected requisition to PW.12 – doctor at Exs.P8 and 9. This requisition also got marked on the part of prosecution. Mere because got marked that requisition made by the investigating officer, it cannot be said that contents in the requisition and also contents in the medical report of the victim at Ex.P6 and also medical report of the accused at Ex.P7 which are established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence. PW.6 who is the victim and she was subjected to examination by PW.12 being doctor and she has specifically stated in her evidence that she, herself went with the accused Ranga @ Oblesha S/o Poojappa. But her evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of the medical report at Ex.P6. Further contradictory to the evidence of PW.5 – complainant who filed the complaint as per Ex.P4 alleging that accused subjected his daughter PW.6 – Kum. But her evidence is quite contrary to the evidence of the medical report at Ex.P6. Further contradictory to the evidence of PW.5 – complainant who filed the complaint as per Ex.P4 alleging that accused subjected his daughter PW.6 – Kum. Preethi for abduction with an intention to get marry and also made confinement of his minor daughter by inducing her. PW.6, being the victim girl has given evidence on the part of the prosecution and also she has been subjected to medical examination by PW.12 – Doctor and whereby issued medical report as per Ex.P6. But entire case of the prosecution even seen at cursory glance that the accused intentionally roped for marrying the victim girl who is examined as PW.6. It is found to be doubtful theory of the prosecution, but even on that count alone the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 relating to abduction and Section 342 relating to confinement. This vital evidence has not been considered by the trial Court and also not appreciated in proper perspective manner but misdirected and also misinterpreted and erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant submits for consideration of the grounds as urged in this appeal and seeks for acquittal of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 342 of IPC, 1860. 12. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 966 -State of Karnataka Vs. Sureshbabu Puk Raj Porral wherein it is held as under: Section 376 – Rape – Victim alleged to be below 16 years – Evidence regarding age, not very convincing -Statement of victim before police as well as during cross-examination that accused did something to her which he ought not to have done. What exactly accused did, could not be elicited no other evidence to corroborate her testimony, it cannot be inferred that accused had intercourse with her. Section 366 of IPC, 1860 – Age of victim doubtful -Question of taking her away from lawful guardianship does not arise. Moreso, when victim herself deposed that she went with accused voluntarily. 13. What exactly accused did, could not be elicited no other evidence to corroborate her testimony, it cannot be inferred that accused had intercourse with her. Section 366 of IPC, 1860 – Age of victim doubtful -Question of taking her away from lawful guardianship does not arise. Moreso, when victim herself deposed that she went with accused voluntarily. 13. But in the instant case, oblesha @ Ranga and victim who was examined as PW.6 has been acquainted to each other. Of course, because of the acquaintance accused abducted victim with an intention to marry and also made her confinement in the house of one Venkatesh cannot be an acceptable evidence for conviction. The aforesaid reliances are squarely applicable to the present case as this contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant for consideration. In AIR 2006 SCC 2461 -Gabbu Vs. State of M.P., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: Sections 366 and 506 of IPC relating to Abduction and criminal intimidation – proof Allegations that accused appellant along with other accused at point of a weapon gave threats to prosecutrix and abducted her against her wishes – Evidence of prosecutrix that accused persons entered in her house where she was sleeping with her husband who woke up due to commotion and yet they forcibly took her – Is not consistent with story of prosecution as alleged in FIR – Delay in lodging FIR evidence of prosecutrix not showing that accused had abduction her with intention to forcibly marry her against her will or that she may be forced to illicit intercourse – Place of incident and motive of accused in taking away prosecturix under a threat is doubtful conviction of accused persons, not proper. 14. In the instant case, PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who is the victim was subjected to examination on part of prosecution but she has not spelt about forcible abduction by the accused and allegation made in the complaint filed by her father PW.5 who has been subjected to examination on part of prosecution and also got marked as Ex.P.4 and only complaint has been made by her father on suspicion about the accused was not found in his house and some enquiry was made and later came to know that she was in confinement of the house of one Venkatesh who is his friend. But at the cursory glance of evidence of PW.5 and evidence relating to the allegation made at Ex.P4 and even fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P1 which was conducted by PW.13 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and another mahazar at Ex.P3 which was conducted in the presence of PWs.4 and 5, but it is not a worthwhile and clinching evidence. The counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of these witnesses on part of prosecution and it appears to be clouds of doubt with the theory and the benefit of doubt should always be extended to the accused alone and even possible doubt would arise on part of prosecution and that benefit of doubt has also to be held in favour of the accused in the criminal justice delivery system. 15. In the instance case, trial Court has rendered acquittal judgment relating to offence under Section 506 but held conviction under Sections 366, 342 of IPC. But all these offences are relating to each other for abduction of PW.6 who is victim girl. But the trial Court has lost its sight for appreciation of the material witnesses of PWs.4, 5 and 6 coupled with the evidence of PW.13 being the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused. On all these premises learned counsel contends and also submits by referring the evidence of those witnesses for consideration of the grounds that urged under this appeal and intervention certainly requires in this appeal because accused who is appellant before this Court would be the sufferer and also there will be miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds and also submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction judgment rendered in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011. Consequent upon setting aside the conviction judgment to acquit the accused for the offences under Section 366, 342 of IPC. 16. On controvert to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the evidence of PW.6 who is victim aged about 13 to 14 years as per evidence of PW.12 – Dr.B.M Nagaraj who issued medical report of the victim as per Ex.P6 relating to victim girl who is minor. But accused abducted victim girl with an intention to marry her and made her confinement. But accused abducted victim girl with an intention to marry her and made her confinement. Her evidence has been found corroborate with the evidence of her father PW.5 – Lokesh, PW.7 – Smt.Sowbhagya who is her mother and PW.8 – Shivashankar who is her uncle and they have stated in their evidence relating to missing of PW.6 – Kum.Preethi and she did not return to her house even after attending tuition class in the house of Pw.4 – Smt.G. Selva who is her tuition teacher. On 10.10.2010, victim girl PW.6 had been abducted by the accused Obalesha @ Ranga. In pursuance with the abduction made by the accused and also in pursuance of the allegation made in the complaint of PW.5 and even ascertainment by him whether the accused was present in his house or not and thereafter only criminal law was set into motion by filing the complaint at Ex.P4 and the said complaint was received by PW.9 – Puttalakkaiah who is the ASI and based upon the complaint FIR has been recorded as per Ex.P5. Subsequent to initiation of the criminal case against the accused by recording an FIR, PW.13 being the investigating officer who took up the case and investigated the case thoroughly and laid the charge-sheet. During the course of investigation he drew the mahazar at Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and also another mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 and laid the charge sheet against the accused. Medical report of victim as per Ex.P6 and medical report of accused as per Ex.P7 the evidence of PWs.5, 7 and 8 are in conformity with the evidence of PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who was minor at the time of abduction made by the accused. But Ex.P4 is the complaint made by her father PW.5 who was subjected to examination and wherein he has stated that the accused used to come near their house and he was talking with victim girl – PW.6. Because of talking terms, the acquaintance was developed in between them and then only the accused made abduction of her. However, for talking terms in between the accused and victim girl, her parents did not made any sort of objection to their daughter. Because of talking terms, the acquaintance was developed in between them and then only the accused made abduction of her. However, for talking terms in between the accused and victim girl, her parents did not made any sort of objection to their daughter. This evidence finds place on the part of the prosecution and even subjected to examination of PWs.5, 7 and 8 and they are the material witnesses and even they are family members that too be the parents and uncle and they have stated in their evidence which is in conformity with the allegation made against the accused in the complaint filed by PW.5 as per Ex.P4, the same has been considered by the trial court. Therefore, it cannot arise for intervention. 17. It is further contended that Ex.P1 is the mahazar which was drawn by PW.13 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 where the victim was confined by the accused in the house of one Venkatesh situated in Halanayakanahalli in the limit of HSR Layout, Bengaluru city. Of course, the aforesaid Venkatesh was not subjected to examination on part of prosecution to prove the case, but PWs.1 and 3 are panch witnesses subjected to mahazar in their presence by PW.13. These two witnesses have not withstood the fulcrum of mahazar. Mere because they did not support to the prosecution, it cannot be arise for brush aside the evidence of PW.13 being the investigating officer who conducted mahazar at Exs.P1 in the presence of PW.4 – G. Selva who is tuition teacher and whereby the victim was going to her house for attending tuition class and their evidence are suffice. PW.5 namely Lokesh who has subscribed his signature at Ex.P3 and this mahazar was also drawn by PW.13 being the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, evidence of PW.13 is suffice to held on the part of prosecution to prove the fulcrum of mahazar and where this witness has subscribed his signature. Venkatesh who is friend of the accused and they were working in BBMP. Therefore, evidence of PW.13 is suffice to held on the part of prosecution to prove the fulcrum of mahazar and where this witness has subscribed his signature. Venkatesh who is friend of the accused and they were working in BBMP. However, these are all the evidence which are placed on part of the prosecution and same has been appreciated by the trial court and has rightly come to conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused, that he had abducted the victim girl PW.6 from near the house of PW.4 – Smt. G Selva and PW.4 had supported the case of prosecution and nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to disbelieve the evidence of prosecution. But PW.5 – Lokesh who is father of victim was also subjected to examination and in his presence Ex.P3 mahazar has been drawn and he also subscribed his signature and their evidence are found to be corroborated with the evidence of PW.13 being the investigating officer and the same has been considered and also appreciated by the trial court as contended. 18. Lastly, learned HCGP for the State has contended and concentrated relating to Ex.P6 medical certificate issued by PW.12 being doctor and also medical report at Ex.P7 relating to the accused. PW.12 has been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and he has spoken in his evidence for having subjected to examination PW.6 victim namely Preethi and accused – Obalesha @ Ranga and also subjected to physical examination and X-ray of victim PW.6 who was taken to ascertain her age. Based upon her medical examination her age is about 13 to 14 years and accused was about 24 years. PW.13 who is the investigating officer has taken the Xerox copies of the transfer certificate relating to the victim girl who was examined as PW.6. But in the transfer certificate of the victim indicates her date of birth as 06.02.1998. Therefore, her age as on the date of incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P4 which was filed by her father – PW.5 is about 12 years 9 months. Therefore, medical report at Ex.P6 issued by PW.12 – doctor clearly indicates the age of victim girl – PW.6 and that she is aged about 13 and 14 years. Therefore, her age as on the date of incident narrated in the complaint at Ex.P4 which was filed by her father – PW.5 is about 12 years 9 months. Therefore, medical report at Ex.P6 issued by PW.12 – doctor clearly indicates the age of victim girl – PW.6 and that she is aged about 13 and 14 years. Even nothing found place on the record to disbelieve the contents at Ex.P6 medical certificate issued by PW.12 who is the Doctor who examined victim and also accused as per Ex.P7. These are all the evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court and arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, under this appeal there is no warranting circumstances that arise for re-appreciation of the evidence for intervention. Therefore, seeks for dismissal of this appeal being devoid of merits. 19. It is in this context of the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also the counter arguments advanced by the learned HCGP for the State, but it requires to see that, the trial court framed charge against the accused under Section 506 IPC, 1860 relating to criminal intimidation of the victim girl PW.6 – Kum. Preethi by the accused. However, PW.6 has been subjected to examination on the part of prosecution but she did not spell in her evidence that accused had extended some sort of criminal intimidation to her if she did not marry him would face dire consequence in her life and consequently, acquitted the accused in respect of criminal intimidation. 20. PW.7 – Smt.Sowbhagya is none other than the mother of the victim and PW.8 – Shivashankar is none other than uncle of the victim and they are the witnesses on the part of the prosecution and even they have been subjected to cross-examination and on close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs.7 and 8 coupled with evidence of PW.5 – Lokesh who is the father of victim PW.6 – Kum. Preethi aged about 13 to 14 years and the evidence of PW.4 – Smt.G. Selva, aged about 75 years being the tuition teacher and where the victim was going to her house to attend tuition classes. Preethi aged about 13 to 14 years and the evidence of PW.4 – Smt.G. Selva, aged about 75 years being the tuition teacher and where the victim was going to her house to attend tuition classes. But on 10.11.2010, victim girl alleged to have abducted by the accused as narrated in the complaint at Ex.P4 filed by PW.5 and this complaint was received by PW.9 – Puttalakkaiah who was working as ASI in R.T.Nagar Police Station and based upon the complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5 by the police having jurisdiction. Thereafter, investigating officer took up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the case and drew mahazar at Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 3 and even drew another mahazar at Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5, but the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence on each of the charges in respect of the ingredients. 21. But on close scrutiny of the aforesaid witnesses on the part of the prosecution which were running contrary to the evidence of PW.13 who drew the mahazar at Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. PW.2 namely – Parashurama has been subjected to examination on the part of prosecution but he did not support the case of the prosecution and his contrary statement has been got marked at Ex.P2, which creates some doubt about the theory put forth by the prosecution. Whereas, PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who is victim girl and she has been subjected to examination on the part of prosecution but she did not spell in her evidence that the accused had extended some sort of criminal intimidation that if she denies to marry him, would face dire consequence. Based upon the evidence of PW.6 and so also, evidence of PWs.7 and 8 trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 506 of IPC, but arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Section 342 relating to confinement and Section 366 relating to abduction from the lawful guardian, even though there is no clinching evidence for conviction. 22. 22. But the ingredients of the abduction of the victim girl made by the accused who is aged about 13 to 14 years as on 10.11.2010 at around 7 p.m. and whereby the victim was attending tuition class in the house of PW.4-Smt.G Selva and had returned to her house alleging that this accused had abducted her in auto rickshaw and made confinement in the house of Venkatesh situated in Halanayakanahalli in the limits of H.S.R Layout, Bengaluru city. But strangely aforesaid Venkatesh who is none other than friend of the accused was not subjected to examination on the part of prosecution relating to elicit the truth of evidence on the part of prosecution for confinement. But arrived at a conclusion that the accused had extended some sort of activities on the victim girl – PW.6 who is aged about 13 to 14 years. There is no eyewitness on the part of prosecution even for abduction of victim girl – PW.6, but the trial Court has given more credentiality and also relied on the evidence of PWs.4, 5, 7 and 8 inclusive of PW.6 who is the victim girl even though the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. However, there are some contradictions and also omissions which were found in the evidence of PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who is the prime witness and also material evidence on the part of the prosecution, which runs contrary to the evidence of her parents PW.5 – Lokesh, PW.7 – Smt.Sowbhagya and PW.8 – Shivashankar who is her uncle. PW.6 has been subjected to examination on the part of prosecution and she has specifically stated in her evidence that she was talking with the accused – Obalesha @ Ranga. Therefore, accused and victim girl are known to each other, but this acquaintance is not sufficient to convict the accused. But there are no eyewitness found on the part of prosecution relating to abducting victim girl as on 10.11.2010 and there is no clinching evidence. 23. However, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5. Therefore, accused and victim girl are known to each other, but this acquaintance is not sufficient to convict the accused. But there are no eyewitness found on the part of prosecution relating to abducting victim girl as on 10.11.2010 and there is no clinching evidence. 23. However, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P5. But PW.5 has been subjected to examination and he has stated in his evidence that he went near the house of the accused and ascertained whether the accused was present in his house, when he went near the house of the accused and made some enquiry with the wife of the accused and there was some sort of exchange of words took in between wife of the accused and PW.5 – Lokesh who is none other than father of the victim girl and then only he has filed complaint as per Ex.P4. But at a cursory glance of evidence of PW.5 – Lokesh with evidence of PW.6 – victim girl coupled with the evidence of PW.4 – G. Selva everyday in between 4.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m, she used to attend tuition class. But, on 10.11.2010 at around 7.00 p.m, PW.6 had been to attend her tuition class in the house of PW.4 – G.Selva. While returning from his house to her house that the accused alleged to have abducted her and made her to confinement in the house of one Venkatesh who is his friend and also accused informed him that he is going to marry the victim girl. But she refused to marry the accused. This thing is required to be established by the prosecution only by securing Venkatesh who is friend of the accused for having subjected to examination and so also to prove the said facts. But on 14.11.2010 accused brought the victim girl – PW.6 to R.T.Nagar Police Station and on the way from Aaloor to Hebbal, the accused purchased a bottle and he consumed the liquid near the bakery and went upstairs. Later accused represented her that he has consumed poison while coming on the way to the police station and after consuming poison he vomited and he was taken to the hospital by his friend Venkatesh and he brought victim girl PW.6 to the police Station. Later accused represented her that he has consumed poison while coming on the way to the police station and after consuming poison he vomited and he was taken to the hospital by his friend Venkatesh and he brought victim girl PW.6 to the police Station. These are all the evidence on the part of prosecution and it should be elicited by the prosecution by subjecting to examination of Venkatesh who is friend of the accused, but this witness has not been secured by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid correspondence of victim PW.6 who was made confinement in the house of Venkatesh who is none other than the friend of the accused. But the vital witness C.W.5 -Venkatesh was not subjected to examination on the part of prosecution that the accused wrongfully confined her in the house of Venkatesh and PW.6 – Kum. Preethi who was said to be missing from the lawful guardian from 10.11.2010 to 14.11.2010 for the period of almost 4 days. However, prosecution has not been putting forth the worthwhile evidence to prove the confinement and PW.6 in the house of CW.5-Venkatesh and forced the victim girl to marry him i.e., accused. 24. However, Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as regards the concept of proving a fact, states that, ‘a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.’ 25. Further, Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as regards the concept of disproving a fact, states that, ‘a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its nonexistence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. This domain of appreciation is vested with the trial court for arrival of right conclusion. 26. But, keeping in view Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the domain is vested with the prosecution as well as the defence also, but the theory requires corroboration. Accused person cannot be convicted solely on the evidence of acquainted to each other i.e., victim and the accused. 27. 26. But, keeping in view Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, the domain is vested with the prosecution as well as the defence also, but the theory requires corroboration. Accused person cannot be convicted solely on the evidence of acquainted to each other i.e., victim and the accused. 27. Further, it is relevant to refer to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. It is well-known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence, which should not give any room for doubt in the theory put forth by the prosecution for convicting the accused. 28. Whereas, it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statements of witnesses and material evidence facilitated, in order to prove the guilt of the accused. But the plurality of witnesses in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses is the domain vested with the Trial Court alone. It is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence which is an important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses are to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. Further, the test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. Whereas the legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it is said that the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. It is the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it is said that the domain is vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. If worthwhile evidence is not produced and doubt arises in the case put forth by the prosecution, it is well-settled principles of law in criminal justice delivery system that benefit of doubt is always in favour of the accused alone. 29. The appellant had been convicted by the trial Court relating to wrongful confinement of PW.6, victim girl. The wrongful confinement is that the accused should have wrongfully confined the victim. This is the essential ingredients of the offence and such restraint was to prevent the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. But PW.6 – victim had been confined in the house of CW. 5 – Venkatesh who is no other than the friend of the accused. But the said Venkatesh was not examined on the part of the prosecution as where the victim was confined in his house. But no stretch of logic or reason can be the justification for causing some wrongful restraint made by the accused with an intention to have marriage with the victim. But the trial Court was rendering acquittal judgment relating to offence under Section 506 of IPC. But both the offences are relating to confinement of victim – PW.6 who was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But she did not supported the case of prosecution relating to extending criminal intimidation on her by the accused. The essential ingredients relating to confinement are required to be established by the prosecution by facilitating worthwhile evidence even for having examined PW.4, PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8 who are material witnesses on the part of the prosecution. But prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the offences relating to wrongful confinement of the victim girl. Therefore, under this appeal, it requires for re-appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, if not, the accused would be the sufferer and there shall some miscarriage of justice. 30. Insofar as the offence under Section 366 of IPC, 1860 relating to kidnapping / abducting the victim girl by inducing her to compel marriage with him. Therefore, under this appeal, it requires for re-appreciating the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, if not, the accused would be the sufferer and there shall some miscarriage of justice. 30. Insofar as the offence under Section 366 of IPC, 1860 relating to kidnapping / abducting the victim girl by inducing her to compel marriage with him. But the essential ingredients of the offences is that a person being an accused abducts victim and she may be compelled to marry a person of an accused. But the victim who is examined as PW.6 and she was enticed away from her lawful guardian. But the essence insofar as the aforesaid offences, it must be the compulsion and it was with the idea of the accused getting married with her. But the prosecution has failed to put forth the case in respect of the ingredients of the said offences of abduction by inducing the victim girl in order to get married with him. But the principles that have to be borne in mind by the trial Courts when considering the evidence on the part of the prosecution. But as a rule of prudence, it has been emphasized that the trial Court should normally looking for some absolute corroboration of victim’s testimony in order to satisfy itself that the victim is saying the truthful acts of the accused in respect of abduction. But in the instant case having gone through the aforesaid material witnesses, it does not inspire the evidence and their evidence is not supported by any independent evidence on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused for abduction of victim girl and also wrongful confinement of victim girl in the house of his friend CW.5 – Venkatesh who is cited as witness in the charge sheet. Therefore, under this appeal it requires for intervention, if not, the accused who is the gravamen of accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall be miscarriage of justice as there is no justifiable reason or sound reason assigned by the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. 31. 31. In the instant case, the prosecution did not facilitated the worthwhile evidence despite that the trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion and misdirected the evidence and so also misinterpreted the evidence which were facilitated by the prosecution. But under this appeal, it requires for intervention in view of warranting circumstances. If not, the accused who is the gravamen of the accusation made against him would be the sufferer. The domain vested with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating positive, cogent and corroborative evidence to probabalise that the accused has committed the alleged offence. Whereas, in the instant case, the prosecution did not facilitate the worthwhile evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860, even though several witnesses were examined, but some clouds of doubt arise in the evidence. Consequently it requires for intervention. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings it is opined that the appeal deserves for consideration. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.305/2011 dated 21.10.2011 is hereby set aside. Consequent upon setting aside the judgment of conviction, the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 342 of IPC, 1860 for which charge has been leveled against him. If any bail bond has been executed by the accused, the same shall stand cancelled.