JUDGMENT : The Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 and Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 are filed against the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.81/2012 dated 22.04.2013, whereby the trial Court acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 365, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for short). 2. Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 is filed by the complainant namely Hanmanth S/o Lachmayya Balichakra seeking interference in the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. 3. Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal judgment in S.C.No.81/2012. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 22.04.2013 in S.C.No.81/2012 Therefore, these appeals have been taken up together for common judgment to be rendered. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Kedar Desai for appellant/complainant, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State and so also learned counsel Sri Ganesh Naik for respondent No.1 respectively and for respondent No.2. Perused the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.81/2012. 5. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution are as under: It is the case of the prosecution that PW-1 Hanumanth who is the father of the victim girl Lakshmi aged about 12 years, has filed a complaint before the Yadgir Rural Police. In the complaint, it is stated that on 25.03.2012 at about 10-00 a.m. Bhimaraya S/o Ashappa CW-11, a relative of the complainant had taken Lakshmi to their house since she had not gone there for a long time. On 26.03.2012 at about 6.00 a.m. the said Bhimaraya informed the complainant over the phone that on the previous day at about 10.30 p.m. the accused Mallikarjun had come to the house on his motorcycle and knocked the door by calling Lakshmi. He and Lakshmi went out of the house and said Mallikarjun suddenly caught hold of the hand of Lakshmi, forcibly got her seated on the motorcycle, and went away. The complainant searched for his daughter, but could not trace her. On 30.03.2012 he came to the police station and complained Ex.P-1. The PSI of Yadgir rural Police Station, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.52/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, FIR has been recorded as Per Ex.P-16. After that, criminal law was set into motion. 6. On 30.03.2012 he came to the police station and complained Ex.P-1. The PSI of Yadgir rural Police Station, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.52/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, FIR has been recorded as Per Ex.P-16. After that, criminal law was set into motion. 6. Investigating Officer has taken the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused by securing the medical certificate and so also drew spot mahazar at Ex.P-7, seizure mahazar Ex.P-8, cloth seizure mahazar at Ex.P-9 and another spot mahazar at Ex.P-10, FSL report at Ex.P-12 and potentiality certificate at Ex.P-15. And laid charge is laid sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. 7. After laying of charge sheet against the accused, the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions by passing a committal order by the committal Court as per Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. 8. After committing the case to the Court of Sessions, the case has been registered in S.C.No.81/2012. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel for accused, framed charges against the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 365, 376, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, a plea of the accused was recorded separately. 9. After framing of charges, the prosecution let in evidence of PWs1 to 15 and produced Exs.P-1 to P-17 and M.O.1. After the closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statements which appeared against them in the evidence. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence. No evidence was led under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. by the accused. 10. After the closure of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating statements which appeared against them in the evidence. But the accused denied the truth of the evidence. No evidence was led under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. by the accused. 10. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, on scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 15 and mainly the evidence of PW-1 complainant which is at Ex.P-1 and also the evidence of PW-3 Lakshmi, PW-4 Devamma, PW-6 Somawwa the material witnesses on the part of the prosecution and so also the evidence of PW-7 Dr Neelamma and PW-14 Dr Amarjeet Patil and the evidence of PW-15 Yashwanth the trial Court concluded the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused doubt and consequently rendered the acquittal judgment. 11. It is contended by Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial court rendered the acquittal judgment without appreciating the evidence on record which are facilitated by the prosecution. It is further contended that accused No.1 abducted the victim girl namely, Laxmi, aged about 12 years on 25.03.2022 at around 10.00 a.m. on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA/02/HE-186. It is further contended same is established in the evidence of P.W.2-Bhimaraya, however the trial court rendered the acquittal judgment without appreciating the material evidence. 12. P.W.3 who has given evidence in consonance with the averments made in the complaint at Ex.P.1. Merely because there are no external injuries found on the body of the victim-P.W.3, it cannot be said that there is no sexual assault on her and seeks to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. 13. In continuation of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, in Crl.A.No.3607/2013, the learned counsel has taken us through the grounds urged in this appeal and would contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 would unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. 14. In his argument advanced by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor by referring evidence of P.W.14 the doctor who issued the medical certificate at Ex.P.4, he would urge that certificate indicates that the victim was subjected to assault. According to the theory of the prosecution, the trial Court ought to have been gone through the evidence of P.W.14 in a proper perspective. 15. According to the theory of the prosecution, the trial Court ought to have been gone through the evidence of P.W.14 in a proper perspective. 15. Lastly, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the statement of the victim who is examined as P.W.3 was aged about 16-17 years would indicate that the accused No.1, has abducted the victim girl from the custody of Bhimaraya. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence from a proper perspective. On these grounds, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to allow the appeal and consequently convict the accused of the offences for which charges are levelled against the accused persons. 16. It is urged that the reasons assigned by the trial Court while passing the judgment of acquittal are not justifiable and sustainable, on all these premise, seeking intervention. 17. Alleging the kidnap of the victim girl, on 30.03.2012, the complaint was lodged. After tracing the victim/ P.W.3 spot mahazar at Ex.P.7 was drawn and the motorcycle bearing KA.02.HE-186 was seized under mahazar at Ex.P8. The aforesaid motorcycle allegedly used by the accused was parked in front of the house of accused No.1-Mallikarjun. On receipt of information, police apprehended accused No.1 – Mallikarjun, and the victim-girl who were in Warknalli and they have been brought to the Yadgiri Police Station at around 3.30 p.m. 18. Voluntary statement of the accused is said to have been recorded. Subsequently, the victim-girl and also the accused No.1 -Mallikarjun was subjected to the medical examination. 19. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 -Mallikarjun accused 2 came to his house and forcibly got her seated on the motorcycle and went away to Shivapur Village. It is alleged that accused No.1 forcibly sexually assaulted her in Shivapur village. The accused No.2 is alleged to have instigated accused No.1 to commit an offence as narrated in a theory of the prosecution. 20. PW.1 - Hanamanth who is none other than the father of the victim-girl, has given evidence. He stated that PW.4 -Devamma, is the sister of PW.3 -victim-girl. They are the daughters of PW.1 -Hanamanth. Devamma is studying Bengaluru. The second daughter -victim girl Lakshmi is illiterate. PW.2 -Bhimaraya took the victim-girl to Muskoor village from her parents house. 20. PW.1 - Hanamanth who is none other than the father of the victim-girl, has given evidence. He stated that PW.4 -Devamma, is the sister of PW.3 -victim-girl. They are the daughters of PW.1 -Hanamanth. Devamma is studying Bengaluru. The second daughter -victim girl Lakshmi is illiterate. PW.2 -Bhimaraya took the victim-girl to Muskoor village from her parents house. It is at around 10.00 p.m., PW.2 telephonically gives the information to the father of the victim-girl relating to the abduction of the victim-girl by the accused. Subsequently, victim-girl was not traced out despite the search. Subsequently, her father PW.1 who approached the Yadgir Police Station has filed the complaint as per Ex.P.1. Based on the complaint, criminal law was set into motion for the alleged offences, stated in the F.I.R. 21. PW.15 -Yashwant being the Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that on 07.04.2012, when PW.3 -victim-girl had returned from the State protective home, made an inquiry with her, and she revealed about sexual assault on her. PW.15 -Yashwant stated in his evidence that the accused No.1 had taken her to the land of his relative situated in Shivapur village. However, in the presence of PWs.11 and 12, Ex.P.10-spot panchanama has been drawn by PW.15 -Yashwant. PWs.11 and 12 who are the panch witnesses have not supported Ex.P.10 – fulcrum of the panchanama. Both the witnesses have turned hostile and nothing has been elicited by the prosecution, even though they have been subjected to cross-examination. 22. PW.15-Yashwant who is the Investigating Officer has stated that he drew the spot panchanama at Ex.P.10 in the presence of PWs.11 and 12. Their evidence is of little consequence in proving the guilt, but in consistence to each other. 23. Ex.P.7 is also the spot panchanama drawn near the house of PW.2-Bhimaraya, who is none-other-than uncle of PW.3 -victim-girl. But PW.15-Yashwant specifically stated in his evidence that PW.1-Hanamanth has shown the scene of the offence. But he has stated in his evidence that PW.2 – Bhimaraya is a resident of Mustoor village, whereas, Basanagaouda and Hanamanth have been secured to draw the spot panchanama at Ex.P.7. But PW.8-Basanagouda has given his evidence. He has specifically stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.7 -spot panchahama. But he has stated in his evidence that PW.2 – Bhimaraya is a resident of Mustoor village, whereas, Basanagaouda and Hanamanth have been secured to draw the spot panchanama at Ex.P.7. But PW.8-Basanagouda has given his evidence. He has specifically stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.7 -spot panchahama. If the evidence of PW.2 – Bhimaraya is considered it is evident that the same runs contrary to the evidence of PW.15 -Investigating Officer it can be seen in the evidence of prosecution. 24. PW.4 - Devamma, who is none other than the sister of PW.3 -victim-girl. She is the material witness on the part o the prosecution, but her evidence is of no consequence to prove the prosecution case for abduction and sexual assault on her sister. 25. PW.7 – Dr. Neelamma and PW.14 - D.r. Amarjeet Patil, are also material witnesses on the part of the prosecution, but their evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW.15 - Yashwant, who drew the Mahazar and also record the statement of witnesses, that too PW.2 and PW.4. 26. As per the medical report produced, PW.3-victim-girl is aged about 16 to 17 years. If the accused had abducted or sexually assaulted her, she could have resisted such act of the accused No.1 – Mallikarjun and there would have been some injuries, but no such injuries are noticed, therefore the theory of the prosecution are doubtful. 27. PW.7 -Dr Neelamma who has been subjected to cross-examination, has specifically stated in her evidence that she did not notice any injuries on the victim-girl. Even PW.7 being the Doctor has specifically stated that there is no sign of sexual assault on the victim-girl. Thus, the theory of prosecution in respect of forcible abduction and sexual assault on the victim girl is highly doubtful, it cannot be believed. 28. Evidence of PW.3-victim-girl itself creates some doubt that accused No.1-Mallikarjun took her forcibly to his relative’s house at Shivapura and sexually assaulted on her at night in his relative’s house. The allegation that PW.3-victim-girl was taken by accused No.1-Mallikarjun to Shivapur village and therein committed sexual assault on her, later taken her to his relative’s land and committed sexual assault is also highly doubtful and so also, it cannot be acceptable. 29. PW.3-victim-girl neither she screamed in the house of relatives of accused-Mallikarjun at Shivapur nor in the land of his relative. 29. PW.3-victim-girl neither she screamed in the house of relatives of accused-Mallikarjun at Shivapur nor in the land of his relative. She does not even say that she protested when she was allegedly abducted in the presence of her uncle PW.2. She is said to be aged between 16-17, as per the evidence of the doctor, but their evidence would not suffice to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence against the accused. 30. It is the case of the prosecution that she was abducted in the presence of her uncle by accused no. 1 and 2 and taken on a motorbike. This allegation of abducting a person aged 16-17 by two persons in the presence of a person i.e., PW.2 who is said to be the uncle of the victim, that too on a motorbike appears to be unbelievable. If there is a protest by the victim and the uncle of the victim, then it is not possible for two persons to abduct on a bike as narrated. 31. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the Ex.P.3 -Hall Ticket of Devamma and has refused to accept the contention that the victim was aged below 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. The learned Sessions Judge has also referred the evidence of the Doctor who examined the victim and issued the medical certificate, which states that the victim must be aged 16 to 17 years. The date of issuance of the certificate is 30.03.2012. The alleged incident is said to have been taken place between 25.03.2012 to 30.03.2012. The Doctor who issued the certificate is examined as PW.14. In his evidence, he stated that there is a possibility of plus or minus 2 years variation in the age of the victim. This evidence of the Doctor is also taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge for recording acquittal Judgment. 32. The learned Sessions Judge has also noted the lacuna on the part of the prosecution which has not made an attempt to secure the birth certificate of the victim to prove their case. Except producing the Hall Ticket of the sister of the victim i.e. PW.4 Devamma, no other documents are produced to establish that the victim was below 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. Except producing the Hall Ticket of the sister of the victim i.e. PW.4 Devamma, no other documents are produced to establish that the victim was below 16 years at the time of the alleged incident. In the absence of specific evidence on record to determine the age of the victim, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly refused to accept the contention that the victim was below 16 years at the time of alleged incident. 33. On the other hand, in view of Ex.P.5 – the doctor’s certificate which reveals that the age of the victim must be around 16 to 17 years, therefore the learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the contention that victim was aged below 16 years is not proved. Accordingly, has given finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was aged below 16 years. This finding of the learned Sessions Judge is based on sound reasons and on appreciation of the evidence, therefore does not call for any interference as contended. 34. The Trial Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 1995 (1) Crimes 606, wherein at para No.38 it is held as under : "Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Section 376 Appellant convicted for committing rape on 15 year old girl in the godown of his shop-Mother of the prosecutrix, as illiterate, not giving definite age of prosecutrix - Prosecutrix, also an illiterate failing to specify her date of birth - Parivar Register produced by prosecution showing figure tempered with -Medical evidence on basis of Ossification test showing age to be 141/2 & 15 which leaves 2 years margin - Prosecution cannot be said to have proved that prosecutrix was below 16 years - Evidence and circumstances indicating that prosecutrix had passively submitted to wishes of accused - Public hair found not matted nor seminal stains present on external genitals and no injury found on her person or on the person of accused -Conviction is unsustainable". 35. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sarooti Devi & Ors. 35. The trial Court has relied upon the judgment in the case of Sarooti Devi & Ors. vs. State of H.P., reported in 1998 (3) Crimes 331, wherein it is observed that : "Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 366/366A and 376—Appellants convicted for offences under—To establish age of prosecutrix, prosecution examined evidence comprising family register, opinion of Radiologist and oral evidence—Birth register being kept in office of CMO was not taken into possession—Adverse inference has to be drawn-Entry in family register did not prove actual date of birth of prosecutrix—Radiologist opined her age ranging between 14 and 16 year—Such opinion was not conclusive and would not be legally sufficient to fix age of prosecutrix—Oral evidence was not in a way specific to fix her age—Prosecution could not be said to have proved age of prosecutrix was below 16 years or even below 18 years and above 16 years—Evidence showing prosecutrix was consenting party as no mark of injury was observed on her body—Conviction was unsustainable". 36. The trial Court has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Mishrilal vs. The State of M.P., reported in 2000 (4) Crimes 85 , wherein it is observed that : "Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 366 and 376—Appeal against conviction for offences— Prosecutrix was married woman more than 18 years of age—She stayed with accused for 15 days and had sexual intercourse but she did not complain to anyone that accused had abducted her and was having sexual intercourse with her—Accused took her to different places with her consent—Story of fraud committed by accused while taking her away from village appeared coined at a later stage—It appeared more probable that accused took prosecutrix with her consent and had sexual intercourse with her consent—Conviction was liable to be set aside". 37. In the aforesaid reliances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issue relating to the age factors of the victim and the same has been facilitated for consideration and accordingly the trial Court has elaborately discussed in the impugned judgment. 38. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, consequently the Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused by assigning sound reasons. 39. 38. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, consequently the Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused by assigning sound reasons. 39. It was also considered by the trial Court that in the medical certificate Ex.P.4 relating to the victim P.W.3 states that she went willingly with him i.e. accused No.1 after he called and stayed in with him the fields at Shivapur for 2 days, but her evidence does not supported with any independent evidence. 40. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence that is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. The legal system has emphasized value provided by each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is quality and not quantity. The same has been addressed extensively in the judgment of Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs & Another vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs & Others reported in AIR 2013 SC 1204 . It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 , that the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of the given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories, there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. This is the concept of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. This is the concept of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The same has been appreciated by the trial Court and conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused to convict them for the offences relating to the abduction of P.W.3 Laxmi and so also under instigation of the co-accused to abduct her. 41. The offence relating to sexual assault has not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence let in do not inspire confidence regarding the ingredients of each of the offences and the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to prove independently each one of the ingredients of the offence, levelled against the accused. 42. At a cursory glance of the entire evidence of the prosecution and mainly the evidence of P.W.3 and her evidence does not inspire, but creates some doubt. When doubt arise in the mind of the Court, the benefit of the doubt is to be confined to the accused alone. It was extensively addressed in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has extensively addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence and also benefit of the doubt in detail. 43. In para 163, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of the doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the following observations: Another golden thread that runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 44. In the instant case, P.W.3 Laxmi who is a victim girl is examined by the prosecution, and her evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Whereas in the instant case, the prosecution did not facilitate worthwhile evidence to secure the conviction. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rendered the acquittal judgment by assigning justifiable reasons. Therefore, it does not arise to call for any interference in the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court. Hence, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER I. The appeal preferred by the appellant/complainant in Criminal Appeal No.3585/2013 and also the appeal preferred by the State in Criminal Appeal No.3607/2013 are hereby rejected. II. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in S.C.No.81/2012 dated 22.04.2013 is hereby confirmed. III. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused persons, shall stand cancelled.