Karnataka High Court
S Nataraj S/O S N Srikantappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2013
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2013
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SREEDHAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1198/2010
BETWEEN:
1. S.NATARAJ,
S/O S.N.SRIKANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT 1ST CROSS, NEAR BUS STOP,
KALALESINDHUVALLI, SINDHUVALLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
2. S.M.SATHISGOWDA @ SATHIS,
S/O.MADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT. C/O CHIKKI MADEGOWDA ,
LINGAHITHARA BEEDI,
KALALESINDHUVALLI,
SINDHUVALLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. JANARDHANA @ JANU @ PAPSI,
S/O. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT. KALALESINDHUVALLI,
SINDHUVALLI, NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
4. SRINIVASA @ SEENA @ SRINIVASARAO,
S/O. SHANKARA RAO,
2
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR 1ST BUS STOP,
LINGAHITHARA BEEDI,
KALALESINDHUVALLI, SINDHUVALLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. S DHANALAKSHMI, ADV. )
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE POLICE OF
V.V.PURAM POLICE STATION,
MYSORE DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.N.S.SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCES DT.3/4.8.10 PASSED
BY THE IV ADDL. DIST. & S.J. MYSORE IN
S.C.NO.96/08-CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363, 364A, 354,
120B R/W 34 OF IPC. 1) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED
ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
AND PAY A FINE OF RS.10,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT
OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I.
FOR ONE YEAR-FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364A OF
IPC. 2) THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR FOUR YEARS AND PAY A FINE
OF RS.2,000/- EACH, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE THEY SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS-
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 OF IPC. 3) THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO S.I. FOR TWO YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.1,000/- IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE THEY
SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR SIX MONTHS-FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 354 OF IPC. THESE SENTENCES
SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANTS/
ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED.
3
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, B.V.PINTO.J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 03.08.2010 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in SC No.96/2008 convicting the appellants for the offences under Section 364-A, 363, 354, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of `10,000/- each in default to suffer one year simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 364-A of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of `2,000/- each in default to suffer six months simple imprisonment for an offence under Section 363 of IPC and further sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 354 of IPC with a further direction that these sentences shall run concurrently.
4
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 19.12.2007 at about 5.30 a.m. in furtherance of common intention of all the accused, accused No.1 kidnapped the girl-Sanjana @ Pooja from her house in Maruthi Van bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-6789 situated at the Gokulam, Mysore-coming within the jurisdiction of V.V.Puram Police station from the lawful custody of her father-Dr.K.C.Gurudev, the complainant, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 363 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. It is further charged against accused/appellants that, on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention, accused committed an offence of kidnapping and kept the girl in the detention after such kidnapping at Chamundi Hills and also on the road from that Hill to Lalith Mahal Palace and threatened to cause hurt to the girl intending to compel the father of the victim to pay a ransom, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 364-A r/w Section 34 of IPC. 5
4. It is further charged against accused/appellants that, on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention, accused used criminal force against the girl-Kum.Sanjana with an intention to outrage the modesty and thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on the above said date, time and place in furtherance of common intention accused being two or more persons had agreed to do an illegal act of kidnapping-CW.2- Kum.Sanjana, thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 120(B) of IPC.
6. The prosecution in order to prove the offences has examined in all 12 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to 13 and produced MOs.1 to 9. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforestated. It is this order of 6 conviction and sentence which has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.
7. The case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by Dr.K.C.Gurudev who has stated that this daughter by name Sanjana @ Pooja was studying in the Christ College in II PUC at Mysore and that she was going for tuition to one Lecturer by name Nandakumar for Physics, so also she was going for tuitions with other Lecturers. Therefore, in order to facilitate the studies of his daughter, he has purchased the vehicle and had appointed accused No.1-Nataraj as driver for the same. On 19.12.2007, at about 5.30 a.m. accused No.1 took his daughter Sanjana @ Pooja in the motor vehicle belonging to him. At about 7.00 a.m. on that day, while going in the vehicle he has waylaid the vehicle and his daughter and made a ransom call to him for a sum of `1,00,000/-. Even after the complainant requesting not to kidnap his daughter, the accused took her and thereafter, he threatened his daughter. It is further stated by him in the complaint that, accused No.1 thereafter along with three other accused took his 7 daughter to the Chamundi Hills and thereafter, by showing the syringe they threatened to sedate her. It is also stated in the complaint that, thereafter, they threatened to take the photographs of his daughter and publish the same in the family circle, thereby, they are alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. Hence, he requests for taking action against them.
8. The V.V.Puram Police Station, Mysore registered the said complaint in Crime No.119/2007 for the offences under Section 363, 364(A), 354, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC and commenced investigation.
9. PW.11-B.Ramamurthy, the Inspector of Police of CCB, Mysore during the relevant period as per orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Mysore took up investigation in this case. He has stated that, on 19.12.2007, he received the aforesaid complaint of the complainant and thereafter arrested accused No.1-Nataraj-driver of the complainant and brought him to the CCB Office. Accused No.1 thereafter disclosed the names of other accused and it 8 was disclosed that, accused No.1 pretended as if he was kidnapped by accused Nos.2 and 3. However, on the instruction of accused No.1 himself, other accused have acted in kidnapping the victim. It is further stated by PW.11 that other accused also acted in coordination with accused No.1 and that they had together kidnapped the victim-Sanjana @ Pooja and took her towards Chamundi Hills and thereafter, they had taken her on road near the Lalith Mahal entrance. At 5.30 p.m to 6.45 p.m. on that day, PW.11 apprehended accused along with the victim in the vehicle and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet.
10. During the trial, the prosecution has examined the complainant Dr.K.C.Gurudev as PW.6. He has reiterated the version made by him in the complaint. It is stated that accused No.1 was appointed by him as driver so as to facilitate his daughter-Sanjana @ Pooja to attend the tuition classes and he was driving the said vehicle. Thereafter accused himself has 9 conspired with other accused and kidnapped his daughter. It is further stated that, thereafter with the assistance of accused Nos.2 to 4, the victim was taken to various places and ransom was demanded by showing syringe and they threatened to kill the victim. Police have seized the syringe which is marked as MO.1.
11. PW.1-Dr.S.T.Ramachandra has stated that, on the date of the incident on 19.12.2007, at about 10.30 p.m. he has examined the victim-Sanjana @ Pooja who had sustained superficial abrasion over left cheek and redness over both cheeks and tenderness over both maxilla. Accordingly, he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P1.
12. PW.2-Krishna is the Medical Shop Owner who has deposed before the Court that, he had identified accused No.3-Janardhan and accused No.4- Srinivasa who had purchased the syringe from his shop. He has identified MO.1- syringe which was purchased by accused Nos.1 and 2 about two days prior to the date of the incident. However, he has turned hostile to the 10 case of the prosecution partially stating that accused No.1 had not come to his shop but it was accused No.3 along with accused No.4 who had come to the shop to purchase the syringe.
13. PW.3-Prakash is a signatory to Exs.P3 and 4 which is spot mahazar and seizure mahazar respectively regarding apprehension of the car in which accused Nos.2 to 4 were found along with the victim. He has also identified syringe- MO.1, mobile phones-MOs.2 and 3, simcard-MO.4 and Camera-MO.5 used by the accused to threaten the victim. He has also identified the accused Nos. 2 to 4 who were apprehended by the police on the date of incident along with kidnapped girl.
14. PW.4-Harish is another witness for seizure of the car as well as apprehension of accused Nos.2 to 4 in the car belonging to the complainant. He has identified the accused as well as the victim before the Court.
15. PW.5-Ramesh is the head constable who has taken part in the apprehension of the accused along with the victim.
11
16. PW.7-Mamatha is the mother of the victim and the wife of PW.6. She has also corroborated the version of PW.6 regarding kidnap of her daughter by name Sanjana @ Pooja by accused No.1 with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4.
17. PW.8-Indramma is the Woman Head Constable who took the victim to the hospital for medical examination at B.M.Hospital, Mysore.
18. PW.9-Sanjana Gurudev is the victim. She has stated regarding the accused being the driver in the car belonging to her father which was used for going to the tuition classes in the morning hours. She has further stated that, on 19.12.2007 at about 5.30 a.m. she got up and thereafter she was taken in the car by accused No.1. She has further stated that, while going on the road, accused No.1 was getting phone calls to his mobile phone and he was rejecting/cutting the said calls. When she was going near the railway station, he had replied to other party in his telephone that he is coming. Thereafter, she got sleep and when she woke 12 up, the first accused has stopped the car and there were three persons who tried to enter into the car. Thereafter, all the three persons entered inside the car and out of them one person sat in the front seat and other two persons sat on her either side. It is further stated by her that, they informed her not to make any noise and held her mouth. Accused thereafter took the vehicle towards the Chamundi Hills. PW.9 has identified all the three persons who came inside the vehicle on the said day. It is stated by PW.9 that one of the accused exhibited a syringe and threatened to kill her, if her father were not to give money to them. They also told her that, if at all they were to inject her, she would not get conscience for four days,. Thus threatening her, they had taken her away to the Chamundi Hills. It is in the evidence of PW.9 that thereafter from the Chamundi Hills road, vehicle was taken by accused No.1 towards Lalith Mahal road and they stopped the car at one place. All three of them got down from the car. At that time, again they demanded PW.9 to inform her father to give money. Being afraid of the accused, she promised to give the 13 money. They also threatened her that they would take her photographs and exhibited the camera to her. She has further stated that, accused No.1 has also joined accused Nos.2 to 4 in the said act. Thereafter accused No.2 to accused No.4 sent accused No.1 to go to the house of the victim and get the money from the father of the victim and accordingly accused No.1 left the place leaving behind the victim in the company of accused Nos.2 to 4. It is in the evidence of PW.9 that, thereafter police apprehended the car and at that time, she was sitting inside the car and both accused were sitting on either side of her and threatened to kill her. She has further stated that, she had sustained injuries on her left cheek and she was also physically manhandled by the accused persons. PW.9 has been thoroughly cross- examined by the defence. However, her version alleging her kidnap and demand for ransom from her father by all the accused is not dislodged by the defence.
19. PW.10-Jishaan is a witness for recovery of mobile, Sudha Weekly Magazine and bus ticket as per 14 seizure mahazar-Ex.P7 and PW.10 has identified the same as per MOs. 6 to 8.
20. PW.11-Ramamurthy is the Inspector of Police whose evidence has been discussed in the earlier part of this Judgment
21. PW.12-Jayaramu is the Head Constable who has registered the case in Crime No.119/2007 on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the victim and handed over the further investigation to his Superior Officer.
22. It is from the above evidence on record that the learned Sessions Judge had found accused/appellants guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as aforestated.
23. Heard Smt.Dhanalakshmi.S. learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP for the State/respondent.
15
24. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that, the conduct of the victim PW.9 indicates that, there was love affair between accused No.1 and PW.9 and that in order to dissuade his daughter from the love affair, a false complaint has been filed by the father of the victim. It is her further submission that, if at all accused wanted to cause hurt to the victim, there was no impediment to do so. Hence, she submits that, the order of conviction may be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
25. Sri.Sampangiramaiah, learned HGCP on the other hand submits that, accused had intended to cause hurt to PW.9 by exhibiting syringe and they had threatened her that if at all they had injected the same, she would be unconscious for four days and that thereafter, they could do anything to her and cause hurt to her. Therefore, this act would clearly attract the offence under Section 364-A of IPC and that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the said offence along with other offences. He also submits that, PW.1-Dr.Ramachandra has clearly stated 16 that the victim was injured on her person. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence for other offences is also justified. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
26. We have carefully gone through the entire materials on record. The evidence of the victim-PW.9 is very clear. It is in her evidence that the even at the time when accused No.1 took her towards the college, he was receiving many phone calls on his mobile and that when she verified as to whose calls were they, the name of Satish was already entered in the mobile of accused No.1, thus clearly establishing that there was earlier meeting of the minds between accused No.1 and other accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the entire incident has been preplanned by accused Nos.1 to 4 and therefore, the order of conviction passed against the appellants for the offence under Section 364A of IPC and other offences is based on evidence on record.
17
27. We have carefully gone through the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge are neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law, but based on evidence on record. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this appeal.
28. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR