Bangalore District Court
State By Hennur Police Station vs No. 1. Ajay @ Keerthi on 11 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 11th day of February, 2020
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA,
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1166/2016
COMPLAINANT:- State by Hennur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
-Vs-
ACCUSED No. 1. Ajay @ Keerthi,
S/o. Venkatesh,
Aged about 24 years,
R/o. Near Om Shakthi Temple,
Banjar Layout,
Bengaluru city.
Native Place:
D.G.Halli, Thanda Post,
Ujjinapura,
Ward No.23,
Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimogga dist.
(Accused No.1)
2. Rohith,
S/o. Kantegowda,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at.No.2, Opp. Government School,
2
S.C.No.1166/2016
Near Hebbala Police Station,
Hebbala,
Bengaluru-24.
(Accused No.2)
3. Venkatesha @ Venki,
S/o. Annamalai,
Aged aobut 21 years,
R/at. Near Om Shakthi Temple,
Banjara Layout,
Bengaluru city.
Native Place:
D.G.Halli, Thanda Post,
Ujjinapura,
Ward No.23,
Bhadravathi Taluk,
Shimogga dist.
(Accused No.3)
4. Vinaya @ Doodu,
S/o.Nagaraj,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at.No.49, 4th Main Road,
Near Yamaha Show Room,
Hebbala,
Bengaluru-24.
(Accused No.4).
3
S.C.No.1166/2016
1. Date of commission of offence : 29.4.2016
2. Date of report of offence : 29.4.2016
3. Date of arrest of the Accused : 30.4.2016
4. Name of the complainant : Kamal Harnnurkar
5. Date of recording evidence : 28.8.2017
6. Date of closing evidence : 7.9.2019
7. Offences complained of : U/Sec.364(A)
R/w.Sec.34 of IPC.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Offences against
Accused No.1 to 4
not proved.
9. State represented by :. Public Prosecutor
10. Accused defended by : Sri. M.D.Paramesha
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hennur police station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.364(A) R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.147/2016.
4
S.C.No.1166/2016
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under; That on 28.4.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., when Cw.4/Amith Anoorkar was proceeding in his Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MK-203, near Sangeetha Show Room, Horamavu Signal, Bengaluru city and within the limits of Hennur police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 3 came in another Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 and with an intention to get ransom abducted Cw.4 in their Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 and took Cw.4 to the house of accused No.1, where accused No.1 to 4 insisted Cw.4 to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and put him in fear of death by showing knife and thereafter accused took Cw.4/Amith Anoorkar towards Mangalore in their Car and again returned to Bengaluru city and insisted Cw.4 to made call to his wife through their cell phone on 29.4.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., while Cw.4 in their unlawful custody accused withdrawn an amount of Rs.48,000/- from the account of Cw.4 by using his ATM Card, thereby accused No.1 to 4 committed offence of 5 S.C.No.1166/2016 abduction for ransom punishable U/s.364(A) of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. Taking the case for investigation, Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, conducted spot panchanma, seized materials and vehicle found in the possession of the accused. Accused No.1 to 4 were arrested and on the basis of information given by them in their voluntary statements, materials used for commission of the offences were seized. Statements of the witnesses recorded as per Section 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 U/s.364(A) R/w. Sec.34 of I.P.C.
4. Cognizance for the offences shown in the charge sheet was taken against the accused persons by the Learned Magistrate. Thereafter, criminal case against accused was registered in C.C.No.55621/2016 on the file of XI- Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Accused No.1 to 4 were released on bail. Since offences alleged against accused 6 S.C.No.1166/2016 are triable exclusively by the court of Sessions, this case was committed to the court of sessions. After committal, this case is re-registered as S.C.No.1166/2016.
5. On 4.3.2017 this court framed charge against accused No.1 to 4, which they denied and claims to be tried.
6. To prove the ingredients of the offences leveled against the accused, prosecution examined 10 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.10, got marked 9 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and got identified material objects at Mo.1 to Mo.5.
7. On completion of the evidence of prosecution side, all incriminating circumstances, available in the evidence of the prosecution were explained to the accused as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., and recorded their statements.
8. Heard arguments by Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as counsel appearing for the accused.
7
S.C.No.1166/2016
9. Now, the points arising for determination as follows:
1. Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 28.4.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., when Cw.4/Amith Anoorkar was proceeding in his Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MK-203, near Sangeetha Show Room, Horamavu Signal, Bengaluru city and within the limits of Hennur police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 3 came in another Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 and with an intention to get ransom, abducted Cw.4 in their Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 and took Cw.4 to house of accused No.1, where accused No.1 to 4 insisted Cw.4 to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and put him in fear of death by showing knife and accused withdrawn an amount of Rs.48,000/- from the account of Cw.4 by using his ATM., Card, thereby accused committed offence of abduction for ransom punishable U/s.364(A) of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C. as alleged in the charge sheet?
2. What Order ?8
S.C.No.1166/2016
10. It is answered for the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NOS.1 & 2:- These points are taken together to avoid repeated discussions.
12. In order to prove the ingredients of the charges framed against accused for the offence punishable U/s.364(A) R/w. 34 of I.P.C., prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Pw.1/Cw.1/Gomathi is the complainant in this case. In her evidence, Pw.1 deposed that, on 29.4.2016 Cw.4 went to Koramangala, Bengaluru to attend meeting. Due to cancellation of meeting, he was supposed to return home. On that day, her husband went in his Scoda Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MK-203. She tried to contact her husband through telephone. There was no response from his side. 9
S.C.No.1166/2016 Hence, she lodged complaint to Hennur police station at 11.00 p.m., night as per Ex.P.1. Next day, she saw accused persons in Hennur police station. Rs.50,000/-was taken from the account of her husband through ATM. She do not know who had taken Rs.50,000/- from the account of her husband. She identified Ex.P.2/spot mahazar, another panchanama/ Ex.P.3, seizure mahazar drawn at the time of seizing car of her husband. In the cross-examination Pw.1 admitted that, she do not know the contents of Ex.P.2. She cannot say who abducted her husband. She had seen accused persons only in the police station, after lodging complaint. She do not know the names of the accused persons. She do not know the contents of Ex.P.3. She do not know to read, write and speak kannada language. Further, Pw.1 deposed that, her name was wrongly taken as Gomathi instead of correct name Komal.
13. Pw.2/Cw.2/Amith is the person, who is the person abducted by the accused persons. In his evidence, Pw.2 deposed that, Cw.1 is his wife. He had seen the accused 10 S.C.No.1166/2016 present before the court. On 28.4.2016 at 2.30 p.m., accused No.1 Ajay had taken him to his house situated at Horamavu. Accused No.3 was present in the house of accused No.1, when he tried to come out from the house, accused No.1 and 3 threatened him by showing knife, demanded Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only). He refused to pay money stating that, he had not possessing that much amount. Accused No.1 and 3 repeatedly persuaded him to pay money, when he refused to do so, accused No.1 slapped on his cheek. Accused No.2 and 4 came to the house of the accused No.1. When he told to the accused persons that, he is having Rs.3,00,000/-, accused went to take his car by leaving their car. As the accused threatened him, he handed over his car key to accused No.1. Accused No.1 brought his car at 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, accused persons took him in his car toward Ring Road. Accused No.1 Ajay was driving the car. There was ATM near Ring Road. Accused persons demanded for ATM card and Pin number. He handed over ATM card and pin number to accused No.2. Accused persons encashed 11 S.C.No.1166/2016 Rs.50,000/- from his ATM card at three separate places. He directed the accused to pay remaining Rs.2,50,000/-. That time accused persons took his car towards Jalahalli, after crossing railway track towards Tumkur. They stopped near Daba, consumed alcohol. When accused persons taking him towards Tumkur, all of the sudden one of accused closed his face by a jacket. Accused No.2/Rohith had given electric shock to his left thigh by using an "electric device". He started screaming. Accused persons persuaded him to pay more money. Being unable to bear electric shock and because of the repeated demand by the accused persons, he agreed to pay Rs.7,00,000/-. Due to electric shock, he went to semi- conscious stage.
14. Next day early in the morning in the milestone, he came to know that, he was about 80 km away from Mangalore by seeing. When his car was moving in ghat section, accused turned car towards Bengaluru as he told 12 S.C.No.1166/2016 them that, he is going to make payment from his ICICI Bank account.
15. On 29.4.2016 accused persons persuaded him to contact his wife through his mobile phone and to tell her to contact her father and get Rs.3,25,000/- deposited to his ICICI Bank. Under compulsion, he told the same to his wife. On the way towards Bengaluru, accused stopped the car to have sugarcane juice.. As accused No.1 felt strain due to driving, he told Pw.2 to drive the vehicle. On the way towards Bengaluru, there was an ATM Centre. Hence, he stopped the car. At that time, police constable snatched car key. Police arrested accused persons who tried to escape. Cw.1 also came with the police. Police took the accused in police jeep. He and his wife went to Hennur Police Station. He identified Button Knife, Nokia Mobile, another knife, one device used to give electric shock at Mo.1 to Mo.5.
16. In the cross-examination Pw.2 admitted that, accused No.1 was taking him to the house of ladies. He 13 S.C.No.1166/2016 admitted that, he had not given medical records for taking treatment for electric shock sustained by electric device. He denied the suggestion that, he was not abducted by the accused persons. Further he denied the suggestion that, he was not given any amount to the accused persons as demanded by them.
17. Pw.3/Cw.5-Meriyam Jennifer Rego who is friend of the complainant. In her evidence Pw.3 deposed that, on 29.4.2016 Cw.1 informed that, her husband was not returned from the office. Hence, they went to police station, lodged complaint by contacting the Cw.11/Preshilla P.S.I. On the basis of the call detail report of the mobile phone of the husband of Cw.1, they went towards Nelamangala where police arrested accused persons along with Cw.1. Police seized lazer gun, 2 knives, debit card, cash of Rs.48,000/-, one mobile phone, and Scoda car under the cover of Ex.P.3/seizure mahazar.
14
S.C.No.1166/2016
18. In the cross-examination Pw.3 admitted that, she cannot say that out of the seized articles which one was in the possession of particular accused person. She denied the suggestion that, in order to help Cw.1, she is deposing false.
19. Pw.4/Cw.2/Saleem is the panch witness for Ex.P.2/ spot panchanama. In the cross-examination, Pw.4 admitted that, at the time of drawing panchanama, there were only 2 to 3 police along with them. He admitted that, he do not know the contents in Ex.P.2.
20. Pw.5/Cw.11/B.S.Prashilla, Pw.6/ Cw.8 -Panchaksharaiah, Pw.8/Cw.10-Ramachandra are police officers and staff of the team formed to trace out the accused persons. In their evidence they deposed with respect to tracing of accused No.1 to 4 and abducted Cw.2. Further they deposed seizure of Mo.1 to 5 under the cover of panchanama. Pw.5/Cw.11 is the Investigation Officer who submitted charge sheet against the accused persons.
15
S.C.No.1166/2016
21. In the cross-examination, Pw.5 admitted that, she had not submitted CDR details along with charge sheet. Further, she has not collected records relating to withdrawal of amount from ATM through the ATM Card of Cw.2. Pw.5 further admitted that, she has not collected any CC TV recording footages to show that, accused withdrawn amount by using ATM Card of Cw.2.
22. Pw.7/Cw.6-Mohan is the seizure panchanama witness present at the time of seizing car. Pw.7 deposed that, he had not seen the accused No.1 to 4. In the cross- examination he denied suggestion that, the car was seized from the possession of accused No.1 to 4.
23. Pw.9/Cw.12- Balanayaka is Retired P.S.I., who submitted charge sheet before the court.
24. Pw.10/Cw.7- Sameer Khan is the panch witnesses for seizue mahazar/Ex.P.8. As this witness turned hostile prosecution cross-examined Pw.7. No admissions elicited in 16 S.C.No.1166/2016 the cross-examination to prove the contents of Ex.P.8/ Mahazar.
25. There are major discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the complainant Cw.1 and the evidence adduced by abducted person Cw.4 with respect to contents stated in the complaint and evidence. Allegation by Cw.4 about ill- treatement by the accused persons and withdrawing amount by using his ATM Card. In addition to that, Investigation Officer not collected electronic evidence such as call detail reports to link the accused persons in the allegation of abduction of Cw.4 for ransom. Further, Investigation Officer not collected records of CC TV footages installed in the ATM Centre where accused persons used to withdraw amount by using ATM Card of Cw.4 which is a very important evidence to link the accused persons with the allegations made against them by Cw.1 and Cw.4. Admissions elicited in the cross- examination of Pw.2 that, he had contacts with accused No.1 in the matter of some ladies is also fact creating doubt on the case of the complainant Cw.1 and Cw.4 that, accused 17 S.C.No.1166/2016 No.1 to 4 abducted Cw.4 for ransom. Basic ingredients required to be proved U/s.364(A) of I.P.C. are as follows;
"364A. Kidnapping for ransom etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter- governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
26. As discussed above and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that, prosecution unable to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that, on 28.4.2016 at about 12.30 p.m., when Cw.4/Amith Anoorkar was proceeding in his Car bearing Reg.No.KA-03-MK-203, near Sangeetha 18 S.C.No.1166/2016 Show Room, Horamavu Signal, Bengaluru city and within the limits of Hennur police station, Bengaluru, accused No.1 and 3 came in another Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 and with an intention to get ransom, abducted Cw.4 in their Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-6010 took Cw.4 to the house of accused No.1, where accused No.1 to 4 insisted Cw.4 to pay an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and put him in fear of death by showing knife and thereafter accused took Cw.4/Amith Anoorkar towards Mangalore in their Car and again returned to Bengaluru city and insisted Cw.4 to made call to his wife through their cell phone on 29.4.2016 at about 2.00 p.m., and accused withdrawn an amount of Rs.48,000/- from the account of Cw.4 by using his ATM., Card, thereby accused committed offence of abduction for ransom punishable U/s.364(A) of I.P.C. R/w.Section 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
19
S.C.No.1166/2016
27. POINT NO.2: In view of the above findings on point No.1, accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the following order is made;
ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.364(A) R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- each as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 to 5 are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period is over. 20
S.C.No.1166/2016 Office is directed to take personal bonds of accused No.1 to 4 for Rs.1,00,000/- each as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of February 2020.) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Pw.1 Gomathi
Pw.2 Ameeth
Pw.3 Meriyam Jennifer Rego
Pw.4 Saleem
Pw.5 B.S.Prashilla
Pw.6 Panchaksharaiah
21
S.C.No.1166/2016
Pw.7 Mohan
Pw.8 Ramachandra
Pw.9 Balanayaka
Pw.10 Sameer Khan
II. For Defence:-
-Nil-
III. List of exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution side:-
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of Pw.4
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of Pw.3
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of Pw.6
Ex.P.4 Copy of Affidavit of Pw.1 and her husband
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of Income Tax Number
Ex.P.6 Photo
Ex.P.7 F.I.R.
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of Pw.5
Ex.P.8 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of Pw.7
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of Pw.10
Ex.P.9 Portion of statement Pw.10
For Defence side:-
22
S.C.No.1166/2016
Ex.D.1 Bank Statement
Ex.D.1(a) Relevant Portion in Ex.D.1 IV. List of material objects marked:-
Mo.1 One Button knife
Mo.2 One Nokia Mobile
Mo.3 One Debit Card
Mo.4 One knife
Mo.5 Electric Device
(RAJESHWARA)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY 23 S.C.No.1166/2016 24 S.C.No.1166/2016 11.2.2020 Accused No.1 to 4 are present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Invoking provision U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.364(A) R/w.Sec.34 of I.P.C.
Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stands cancelled.
Accused No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to execute fresh bail bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- each as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C., and same shall be in force for a period of six months from this day.
Mo.1 to 5 are ordered to be confiscated to the State, after the appeal period is over. 25
S.C.No.1166/2016 Office is directed to take personal bonds of accused No.1 to 4 for Rs.1,00,000/- each as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
Further, office is directed to send the certified copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate of Bengaluru city, as required U/s.365 of Cr.P.C.
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
26 S.C.No.1166/2016