JUDGMENT : The appeal is set down for Orders. But learned HCGP Shri Rahul Rai K for the State is present before court physically and submits that Accused No.1 / Yogesha M.N. S/o. Nagaraju has died during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal against him stands abated according to the provision of Section 394(2) of the Cr.P.C. This submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is placed on record and also the fair submission made by the learned HCGP for the State is acknowledged. Accused No.1 as well as the remaining accused in Spl.Case No.97/2014 and Spl. Case No.101/2015 have faced trial before the Trial Court, but the case has ended in acquittal against all of the accused. The entire role is made against Accused No.1 only. But, the case against the said Accused No.1 stands abated as under Section 394(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, the matter even though is set down for Orders, it is taken up for final disposal, where the remaining accused Nos.2 to 7 are arraigned as respondent Nos.2 to 7 in this appeal. Their counsel during the course of trial has taken defence and the same can be seen in the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and the cross-examination relating to the witnesses have been let in by the prosecution, which is taken into consideration in this appeal also. The remaining Accused Nos.2 to 6 have engaged the services of the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K. However, process though served upon Respondent No.7 herein who is Accused No.7 in Spl.C.No.101/2015, but he has remained absent and unrepresented. However, this Accused No.7 also had faced trial before the Trial Court in respect of which the Trial Court has rendered a common judgment of acquittal. Therefore, process against him also be taken into consideration relating to keeping in view the role of each one of the accused, and more importantly except Accused No.1 who is no more, the remaining accused only to participate in the proceedings as alleged. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K who is on record for Accused Nos.2 to 6 / Respondents 2 to 6 is taken into consideration in this appeal whereby the accused have engaged his services. This observation is made in this appeal. 2. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K who is on record for Accused Nos.2 to 6 / Respondents 2 to 6 is taken into consideration in this appeal whereby the accused have engaged his services. This observation is made in this appeal. 2. This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in a common judgment of Spl.C.No.97/2014 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 dated 09.04.2018. By the said judgment, the respondents herein who were arraigned as accused before the Trial Court have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. This appeal is preferred by the State by urging various grounds and seeking intervention of the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court by re-visiting the entire evidence inclusive of exhibited documents and thereby to set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and thereafter to convict the accused for the offences leveled against them. 3. Heard the learned HCGP for the State who is present before court physically and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal in common rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.97/2014 in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and Accused No.7. But in this case, Accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. had faced trial for the alleged offences before the Trial Court in the aforesaid case and the case had ended in acquittal. More so, he is the main accused relating to the incident narrated in the complaint filed by the gravamen of the incident, based upon which criminal law was set into motion. Insofar as the case in Spl.C.No.101/2015, it is in respect of Accused No.6 namely Kumar S/o. Nagaraju and even the case against him had also ended in acquittal inclusive of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 in Spl.C.No.97/2014. The prosecution had let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P23. The prosecution had let in evidence by subjecting to examination PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P23. But no material objects were marked on the part of the prosecution and there is no defence evidence on the part of the accused even after conclusion of the trial and even after recording the statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the prosecution and defence and examining the material documents both oral and documentary, acquitted the accused by its impugned judgment. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal by urging various grounds. 4. Heard the arguments on the part of the learned HCGP for the State, and the learned counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K. for Respondents 2 to 6 who is on record. Respondent No.7 though served, has remained absent and unrepresented. But appeal against Respondent No.1 / accused No.1 stands abated due to the death of the accused during the pendency of the appeal. The same has been maintained in this matter vide order dated 22.04.2021. Role of Respondent No.7 / accused and other co-accused are in conformity with the role* made by Respondent Nos.2 to 6 who have engaged the services of the counsel Shri Bhaskara Heggade C.K. Hence, the contentions in respect of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 holds good for Respondent No.7 as well. 5. Factual matrix of the appeal are as under: It transpires from the case of the prosecution that on 21.07.2014 at around 7.30 p.m. at Menasiganahalli village within the limits of Akkur Police Station, Accused no.1 namely Yogesha M.N. S/o. Nagaraju with the assistance of co-accused Nos.2 to 7 had come over on a motor cycle bearing No.KA-51/K-1931 which belonged to Accused No.2 namely Manju S/o. Babu and had abducted a minor girl namely CW-2 from her house. This motorcycle has been utilized by this accused for abducting the victim CW-2 who was a minor. Subsequent to abducting the victim girl, they had reached Bommenahalli of Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District. The victim girl was said to be confined in the house of a relative of Accused No.1 namely Yogesha S/o. Nagaraju, where the said Accused No.1 had committed aggravated sexual assault upon the victim girl between 27.07.2014 and 28.07.2014. Subsequent to abducting the victim girl, they had reached Bommenahalli of Bhadravathi Taluk, Shivamogga District. The victim girl was said to be confined in the house of a relative of Accused No.1 namely Yogesha S/o. Nagaraju, where the said Accused No.1 had committed aggravated sexual assault upon the victim girl between 27.07.2014 and 28.07.2014. Accused No.1 however, died during the pendency of the present appeal and as a result, the appeal against him stands abated. The accused are said to have abducted the said victim girl as on 21.07.2014 at around 7.30 p.m. In pursuance of the act of the accused as narrated in the complaint filed by the complainant, criminal law was set into motion. Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused by the police having jurisdiction, the I.O. has taken up the case for investigation and thorough investigation has been done and laid a charge-sheet against the accused persons. 6. The charge-sheet has been laid before the court having jurisdiction and on receipt of the charge-sheet by the Committal Court, the Committal Court had passed an order as under Section 209 Cr.P.C. by complying with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the Cr.P.C. Subsequent to committing the case to the Sessions Court for trial, the case was assigned as Spl.C.No.97/2014 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 7. Subsequent to committing the case to the Sessions Court for trial, charges were framed against the accused whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Accordingly, plea of the accused was recorded separately. Subsequent to framing of charge against the accused, PW-1 to PW-16 have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P23 but no material objections have been got marked on the part of the prosecution and even there is no defence evidence and there is no exhibited documents on the part of the defence side. The victim girl CW-2 who was abducted by the accused has given her statement as contemplated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as per Exhibit P2. 7. PW-2 Mahadevamma is the complainant and based upon her complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P17, whereby the I.O. / CW-28 had subscribed his signature. PW-2 was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. 7. PW-2 Mahadevamma is the complainant and based upon her complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P17, whereby the I.O. / CW-28 had subscribed his signature. PW-2 was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. CW-28 being the I.O. had subscribed his signature at Exhibit P3 / complaint and PW-2 had also subscribed her signature at Exhibit P3 of the complaint. PW-5 / Malavappa had given his statement as per Exhibit P4 and PW-6 / Lakshmi being a mahazar witness had subscribed her signature at Exhibit P5 which is marked as Exhibit P5(a). PW-9 / Mahalinga, who is one of the mahazar witnesses had been secured and he had subscribed his signature at Exhibit P11 and mahazar has been drawn by the I.O. during the course of investigation. PW-7 / Srinivasa and PW-8 / Uma were secured by the I.O. to act as mahazar witnesses and accordingly, PW-16 / Nagaraju who is the I.O. drew the mahazar at Exhibit P6 in their presence, whereby they had subscribed their signatures. PW-16 being the I.O. drew the mahazar at Exhibit P5 in the presence of PW-6 Lakshmi and whereby he had also subscribed his signature. 8. It is relevant to refer that PW-16 being the I.O., during the course of investigation, he secured the Birth Certificate of the victim as per Exhibit P12 and whereby he had subscribed his signature at Exhibit P12(b) and got subscribed the signature of one Narayan at Exhibit P12(a). 9. Exhibit P7 to P10 are the photos and that photos were also got marked on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. PW-12 Dr. Kavitha examined the victim and issued a report as per Exhibit P13 and subscribed her signature at Exhibit P13(a). Exhibit P14 is the report of the accused who was subjected to examination by the Doctor. PW-13 / Dr. Basavaraju had subjected to examination the accused and subscribed his signature. PW-14 / Mahesha was secured as a witness and in his presence, PW-16 / I.O. has conducted the mahazar at Exhibit P15 and both have subscribed their signatures. Exhibit P18 is the mahazar and this mahazar has been drawn by PW-16 being the CPI who is an I.O. and he has done the investigation. PW-14 / Mahesha was secured as a witness and in his presence, PW-16 / I.O. has conducted the mahazar at Exhibit P15 and both have subscribed their signatures. Exhibit P18 is the mahazar and this mahazar has been drawn by PW-16 being the CPI who is an I.O. and he has done the investigation. Exhibit P19 and P20 are the photos of the motor bike which had been used by the accused to abduct the minor victim girl. Exhibits P21 and P22 are the hand sketches, which sketches had been drawn by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet against the accused. Exhibit P23 is the FSL report and this report has been secured by the I.O. during the course of investigation. But all the documents at Exhibits P1 to P23 have been included in the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. against the accused before the court having jurisdiction. Subsequent to committing the case, the accused had faced trial and the case ended in acquittal relating to the common judgment in Spl.C.No.97/2014 in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 in respect of Accused No.6 namely Kumar S/o. S. Nagaraju. 10. This is the evidence let in by the prosecution and also got marked several documents but the appeal is nothing but continuity of proceedings and more so it requires re-appreciation of the evidence and re-visiting the evidence on the basis of the grounds urged by the learned HCGP for the State by referring to the evidence of the prosecution. 11. The contention made by the learned HCGP for the State in this appeal is that the appellant who is none other than the State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court dated 9.4.2018 by its common judgment. But the prosecution even though facilitated worthwhile evidence and subjected to examination PW-1 to PW-16 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P23 on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, but the Trial Court did not appreciate the material evidence inclusive of CW-2 being a minor girl alleged to have been abducted by accused No.1 with the assistance of co-accused Nos.2 to 7 and committed sexual assault on her in his relative’s house situated in Bhadravathi in Shivamogga District. 12. 12. PW-1 has specifically stated in his evidence on the part of the prosecution that the accused had forcibly entered into the house of the victim girl who is cited as CW-1 and in the absence of her mother, with an intention to commit sexual assault on her, had abducted her and also had extended threat to her not to disclose the incident to anyone as regards sexual assault committed by him on the victim girl. It is only after four months when enquired by the victim’s mother that she has disclosed about the alleged incident narrated in the complaint, which is revealed from the statement made by the victim as contemplated under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 with the assistance of co-accused had abducated the victim girl in a motor bike and kept her in captivity in his relative’s house, where he had committed sexual assault on her. This evidence is forthcoming on the part of the prosecution to establish the prosecution theory, but the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on the part of the prosecution in a proper perspective. Merely because there is no medical evidence relating to the medical report on the part of the victim girl inclusive of Accused No.1 relating to sexual assault, it cannot be said that the entire case of the prosecution requires to be thrown out and the prosecution did not establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. The accused had faced trial not only for offences under the IPC, 1860 but also for offences under the POCSO Act, 2012, whereby the victim being a minor girl was abducted by Accused No.1 with the assistance of Accused Nos.2 to 7 with an intention of sexually assaulting her. This evidence finds place on the part of the prosecution. Therefore, in this appeal it requires for re-appreciation of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, since the Trial Court has misdirected to consider the grounds urged in this appeal and hence the learned HCGP seeks to set aside the common judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court by its order dated 09.04.2018 and thereby to convict the accused for offences under Sections 5(1) (m) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and also to convict the accused for offences under Sections 366A, 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC, 1860. These are all the contentions made by the learned HCGP for the State seeking to allow the appeal by considering the grounds urged in this appeal and thereby to set-aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in common judgment in Spl.C.No.97/2014 and Spl.C.No.101/2015 dated 09.04.2018 in respect of the offences. 14. The entire case revolves around Accused No.1 namely Yogesha M.N., who with the assistance of co-accused Nos.2 to 7 had abducted CW-2 who was a minor in a motorcycle and thereby confined her in the house of his relatives at Bhadravathi, Shivamogga. PW-1 who is the victim girl had been subjected to examination and even her mother PW-2 / Mahadevamma was also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and their evidence has been appreciated by the Trial Court inclusive of the evidence of PW-3 / Rajamma who is none other than the younger sister of PW-2 / Mahadevamma. PW-4 / Ravikumara is none other than the father of the victim. PW-5 / Malavappa is the uncle of the victim who has stated in his evidence that 3 years ago, PW-2 / Mahadevamma, who is the mother of the victim had telephonically given information to him in the morning hours informing him that their daughter PW-2 who is the victim had been abducted and she would bring them to his home. Accordingly, at around 3.00 p.m., PW-2 Mahadevamma had brought the victim and Accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. to PW-5 Malavappa’s house and they remained in his house till 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. in the evening. Subsequently that PW-2 Mahadevamma who is none other than the mother of the victim, took both the victim and accused no.1 to their village. But this PW-5 Malavappa who is the uncle of the victim and also relative of PW-1 to PW-4, has turned hostile to the evidence of the prosecution. This witness even though has been subjected to cross-examination on the part of the prosecution, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to consider the evidence on the part of the prosecution to arrive at the conclusion that the victim girl had been abducted by Accused No.1 with the assistance of co-accused Nos.2 to 7 with an intention of having sexual assault on her. PW-4 Ravikumar who is one of the witnesses and also being the father of the victim girl has stated in his evidence that he was living in the family consisting his children, his wife and also his aunt. But he has stated in his evidence that Accused No.1 Yogesha, with the assistance of all other co-accused, had abducted his daughter CW-2 who is a minor. His wife had telephonically given information about the abduction of his minor daughter. Consequently, he had rushed to the house and made a search of his daughter but she was not found and also could not be traced. Therefore, he filed a complaint by approaching the Akkur P.S. relating to missing of his daughter. But Akkur P.S. had brought his daughter and Accused No.1 Yogesha. His daughter CW-2, the victim had informed to them that she was abducted by the accused and also that she was sexually assaulted by Yogesha. But in the cross-examination of PW-4, nothing worthwhile has been elicited relating to the incident narrated in the complaint filed by PW-2 at Exhibit P3, as per the statement given by the victim girl as contemplated under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. at Exhibit P2, but runs contrary to each other. 15. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 who is the victim girl and so also at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-2 / Mahadevamma, the evidence of PW-4 / Ravikumar, the incident narrated in the complaint at Exhibit P3 as well as the statement given by the victim girl as per Exhibit P2, it is found that they are all camouflaged and though these material witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited to prove the guilt of the accused. PW-12 Dr. Kavitha though subjected to examination the victim girl PW-1 and issued the report at Exhibit P13 and PW-13 / Dr. Basavaraju though subjected to examination the accused and issued a medical report at Exhibit P14, but their evidence are not corroborated with the evidence of the said witnesses such as PW-1 / victim girl, PW-2 / Mahadevamma, mother of the victim and PW-4 Ravikumar inclusive of the evidence of PW-3 / Rajamma, PW-6 / Lakshmi, PW-7 / Srinivasa and PW-8 / Uma. Though these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination and even the mahazars have been marked as per Exhibit P5, Exhibit P6, Exhibit P11, Exhibit P15 and Exhibit P18, these are all mahazars conducted by PW16 being the I.O., but nothing worthwhile has been elicited even in the fulcrum of the mahazar through these witnesses. But, at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW-1 / victim, PW-2 / mother of the victim and PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, they are close relatives to the victim girl and also her family consisting of her parents, nothing worthwhile has been elicited by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused so as to secure conviction relating to the offences of abduction of the victim girl who is a minor and also as regards having had sexual assault on the victim girl by confining her in the relatives house of Yogesha situated in Bhadravathi, Shivamogga District. 16. Merit of the statement is an important aspect in the criminal justice delivery system. It is well-known principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness on the part of the prosecution if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. They are not concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution but only concerned with the merit of the statement of a particular witness, where the appreciation of the evidence is an important domain vested with the Trial Court alone. 17. Insofar as the criminal justice delivery system is concerned, 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 statement of witnesses. 18. In the instant case, PW-1 to PW-16 have been subjected to examination and several documents have been got marked at Exhibits P1 to P23, including the 164 statement of the victim at Exhibit P2 and the averments made in the complaint at Exhibit P3 and mahazars had been conducted by PW-16 in the presence of panch witnesses and so also photos were collected at Exhibits P7 to P10 and documents namely Birth Certificate of the victim girl and Medical report of victim and Accused No.1 at Exhibit P13 and P14 were got marked. But, in the matter of appreciation of evidence of the witnesses, it is not number of witnesses who are examined. Even though so many witnesses have been subjected to examination by the prosecution, but quality of the evidence is an important aspect having a pivotal role for consideration. There is no requirement in law that any particular number of witnesses have to be examined to prove the guilt of the accused. However, proving / disproving a fact is the domain vested with the prosecution and the role made by the defence counsel by subjecting to examination prosecution witnesses. The evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of trust, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or not. However, section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even to prove / disprove or not prove this domain is equally vested with the prosecution and also an important domain vested with the Trial Court relating to appreciation of evidence. But in the instant case, even though PW-1 to PW-16 were subjected to examination and several documents have been got marked, no worthwhile evidence has been elicited by the prosecution. Whereas the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. Therefore, the prerogative power is vested with the prosecution to subject to examination witnesses and subject to get marked documents. 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 testimony of a single witness. 19. In the instant case, PW-1 being the victim girl and PW-2 Mahadevamma being the mother of the victim girl have been subjected to examination and even other witnesses were also examined. But no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and more particularly, with regard to accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. who is arraigned as Respondent No.1 in this appeal. But he has died during the pendency of the appeal. But no worthwhile evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and more particularly, with regard to accused No.1 Yogesha M.N. who is arraigned as Respondent No.1 in this appeal. But he has died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal against Respondent No.1 stands abated. But the main allegation is as regards the role made by Accused No.1 as according to the theory put forth by the prosecution. Even though the appeal has been preferred by the State which is a continuity of proceedings, but the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution did not establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to secure conviction. Further, the case against the main Accused No.1 has abated. Hence, in this appeal we find that there are no warranting circumstances arising to re-visit and even to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 20. In view of the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that the appeal does not have any bone of contention and there is no substance to call for any interference. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. Consequently, the common acquittal judgment in Spl.Case No.97/2014 and Spl. Case No.101/2015 dated 09.04.2018 is hereby confirmed. If the accused / respondents have executed any bail bond, the same shall stand cancelled.