Bangalore District Court
Hennur Ps vs Praveena on 6 January, 2026
KABC010027392014
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of January 2026.
S.C.No.572/2014
COMPLAINANT: State by
Hennur Police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Public Prosecutor)
.Vs.
ACCUSED : 1. Praveena,
S/o.Babu. .... (Abated)
3. Michael,
S/o.Das,
Aged about 31 years,
R/of.2nd Cross,
Near Sri Mangalakshmamma
Temple, Ashok Nagar,
K.G.Halli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.A.N., DLSA Counse)
2 S.C.No.572/2014
4. Mathew @ Mathew Joseph,
S/o.Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 20 years,
R/at.No.503/26,
C/o.Sarojamma's House,
Mallappa Layout,
(Leftside of White House),
Babasapalya,
Agara Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.R.S., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The P.S.I., of Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 by showing the accused Nos.2 and 5 as absconding for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. The learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., has committed the case against the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the Court of Hon'ble Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as the offences alleged against them are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. After committal of the case, the case is made over to this court for trial in accordance with law.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that the 3 S.C.No.572/2014 accused persons with common intention to gain money have criminally conspired to kidnap C.W.1 for ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, the accused went near the house of C.W.1 and enquired his whereabouts and came to know that C.W.1 went to a meeting. Later the accused have decided to kidnap C.W.3 and went near C.W.3 and took him near an auto, but C.W.3 escaped from their clutches. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, on 8.01.2024 at about 9-45 p.m., while C.W.2-Hemanth Kumar, i.e., son of C.W.1 was going near the juice shop situated at Babusapalya & Agara Road, the accused came near the juice shop and told C.W.2 that his aunt is arriving and sitting in an auto and forcibly took him near the house and threatened him to sit inside the auto or else they will murder him by showing knife and later took the phone number of C.W.1 from C.W.2 and telephoned to C.W.1 that your son was being kidnapped and demanded for ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and if he fails to pay the amount, they will cut off C.W.2 into pieces. For which C.W.1 can pay only Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter on receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- from C.W.1, the accused have got released C.W.2 and further told C.W.1 that he will have to pay the amount every month or else they will not leave 4 S.C.No.572/2014 his son. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
4. On securing the presence of the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 , my learned predecessor has framed the charge against them for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked 9 documents from Exs.P.1 to 9.
Meanwhile during the pendency of the trial, the accused No.1 is reported to be dead. Hence the case against accused No.1 is abated and proceeded the case against accused Nos.3 and 4.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused Nos.3 and 4 were recorded. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have denied the incriminating evidence stated against then. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have chosen not to adduce any defense evidence.
5. Heard.
6. The points raised for determination are as under :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 5 S.C.No.572/2014 8.01.2024 at about 9-45 p.m., in front of juice shop situated at Babusapalya and Agara Road, within the limits of Hennur Police Station, the accused Nos.3 and 4 along with abated accused No.1 & absconding accused Nos.2 and 5 have kidnapped C.W.2 i.e., son of C.W.1 for ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and later on receiving Rs.50,000/- from C.W.1, they got released C.W.2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 364(A) r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the alleged date, time and place, accused Nos.3 and 4 along with abated accused No.1 & absconding accused Nos.2 and 5 with common intention have criminally conspired to commit the crime and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC ?
3. What Order ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
POINT No.1 - Negative, POINT No.2 - Negative, POINT No.3 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
8. POINTS Nos.1 & 2: Since both these points are 6 S.C.No.572/2014 interconnected to each other, they have been taken up together for discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence.
9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons with common intention to gain money have criminally conspired to kidnap C.W.1 for ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, the accused went near the house of C.W.1 and enquired his whereabouts and came to know that C.W.1 went to a meeting. Later the accused have decided to kidnap C.W.3 and went near C.W.3 and took him near an auto, but C.W.3 escaped from their clutches. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, on 8.01.2024 at about 9-45 p.m., while C.W.2-Hemanth Kumar, i.e., son of C.W.1 was going near the juice shop situated at Babusapalya & Agara Road, the accused came near the juice shop and told C.W.2 that his aunt is arriving and sitting in an auto and forcibly took him near the house and threatened him to sit inside the auto or else they will murder him by showing knife and later took the phone number of C.W.1 from C.W.2 and telephoned to C.W.1 that your son was being kidnapped and demanded for ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- and if he fails to pay the amount, they will cut off C.W.2 into pieces. For which C.W.1 can pay only Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter on receiving the amount of Rs.50,000/- from C.W.1, the accused have got released C.W.2 and further 7 S.C.No.572/2014 told C.W.1 that he will have to pay the amount every month or else they will not leave his son. Thereby the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
10. P.W.1-Sri.Saravana in his evidence dated:25.06.2016 has stated that since 25 years he has been running cable business. C.W.4 is his wife, C.Ws.2 and 3 are his children. C.W.5 is his mother. Earlier they were residing at Neharupuram. In the year 2014 C.W.2 was studying in 7th Standard in Royal School. He used to drop him to the school at 8-30 a.m., and after the school he used to come home alone. He knows only the accused No.1 who was residing in their locality and who was also his customer. On 8.01.2014 at 8-30 p.m., when he was in a meeting he kept his mobile switched off and after the meeting when he switched on the mobile phone, he received a call from his wife informing him that the accused had come to their house and asked for him. Also the accused No.1 had called up C.W.3 to talk, but C.W.3 refused to go with accused No.1. At that time C.W.2 had gone outside to purchase juice and the accused No.1 who had been observing C.W.2 in the shop called C.W.2 telling him that his aunt had come to talk with him and at that time accused Nos.3 and 4 were in the auto. The accused No.1 asked C.W.2 to touch his waist and threatened by showing him 8 S.C.No.572/2014 a knife and asked him to get into the auto. C.W.2 had recognised that the said auto belongs to accused No.4. As the house of accused No.4 is next to a park and he had seen the auto in their house. C.W.4 had waited for C.W.2, but he did not return back. Then she went to the shop and enquired about her son and at that time the shop owner informed her that 4 people had taken him in an auto when he was consuming juice in their shop. Immediately C.W.4 returned back home and then she and C.W.5 were crying stating that C.W.2 has been kidnapped. So he then went to the shop and enquired about the incident in the said shop and also in the wine shop. When he was going to the Police Station to lodge the complaint, he received a telephone call from accused No.1 informing him that the C.W.2 was safe with him and demanded a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/- to release him. He told his inability to pay such amount, but the accused No.1 threatened him that if he failed to pay the said amount, he would kill C.W.2 and throw his body in front of his house and also threatened him not to lodge complaint to the police. He then went to his mother's house at about 3-00 a.m., instead of going to the Police Station and arranged Rs.50,000/-. Meanwhile the accused No.1 telephoned him and asked him to come over to Indian Oil bridge near Bata Showroom Banasawadi, Sevanagara. When he went to the said spot in his car along with C.Ws.3 to 5, he waited there for some time, but again he received a call from 9 S.C.No.572/2014 accused No.1 enquiring as to whether he is accompanied by the police. He informed the accused that he had come alone without the police, they then came in blue colour goods auto meant for gas cylinders. The accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 had come in the said auto. The accused No.1 received the amount of Rs.50,000/- and made a signal to the other accused to release C.W.2 and C.W.2 was released. The accused No.1 requested his mother C.W.5 not to disclose about the incident. On the next day morning he received a telephone call from accused No.1 requesting him to arrange some more money, but he refused to do so, but he lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1). On 10.01.2014 the police came to their house and drew the mahazar and they went to the plac es shown by C.W.2. He and C.W.2 had identified the goods vehicle and same was seized under mahazar (Ex.P.2). He has identified the accused No.5 present before the court. He has identified the photographs of the auto (Ex.P.3). He stated that the black coloured auto as seen in the photo (Ex.P.4) belongs to the accused No.4.
P.W.1 has not been cross examined by the learned advocate for accused.
11. P.W.2-Sri.Hemantha Prasad is the victim in this case. In his evidence dated:25.05.2016 he has stated that on 8.01.2014 at 9-30 p.m., he had been to the 10 S.C.No.572/2014 shop situated nearby his house to purchase juice. When he was standing near the shop, 5 people came in an auto and asked him to climb the auto by threatening him by showing a knife which was kept in his waist. Due to threat he climbed the auto and he was taken near Don Bosco Church Quarters where he was kept in the quarters up to 2-30 a.m. He had given the telephone number of his father to whom they called up. They then took him near Bata show room in an auto where his father gave Rs.50,000/- and they then released him to his family. On the next day morning the police came to their house and enquired with him about the incident. He took the police to the quarters where he was detained by the accused and the police drew the mahazar (Ex.P.2). He has identified Ex.P.3 which is the photo of the auto in which he was brought near Bata Showroom. He has also identified Ex.P.4- photo of the auto in which he was kidnapped from the spot. The police have recorded his statement. The accused were speaking in Tamil language. He further stated that the accused telephoned his father and demanded ransom for his release and if he fails to do so, they threatened to kill him. He has identified the accused Nos.3 and 4 present before the court. As the accused No.1 was not present before the court. The advocate for accused No.1 had submitted no objection regarding the identity of accused No.1.
11 S.C.No.572/2014In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused Nos.3 and 5 which was done on 12.08.2025 i.e., after lapse of more than 9 years, it is elicited that on 8.11.2014 at 9-30 p.m., the juice shop to which he had gone was at a distance of 200 mtrs., from his house. He admitted that if he shouts from the shop, it can be heard in his house. It is admitted that there is a Tea shop, MRP shop near the juice shop and there is movement of people. He admitted that when he went to the juice shop, there were people. It is elicited that after placing the order for juice he was waiting for it and at that time Praveen Kumar came near the shop and informed him that his aunt is waiting in the auto, so he went along with him towards the auto, but his aunt was not there. Other than Praveen there were 3 other people in the auto. He has denied the suggestion that as Praveen is very close to his father, so he went with him when called. He admitted that other than Praveen he does not know 3 other people and also he does not know their names. He admitted that he was not personally knowing the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. He admitted that he had the said accused for the first time when he came to give evidence before the court and he had not seen them in his locality.
12. P.W.3-Smt.Chitra is the mother of the victim (C.W.2) and wife of C.W.1. In her evidence dated:25.11.2018 she has stated that her son C.W.2 12 S.C.No.572/2014 had gone to bring juice and her elder son C.W.3 informed her that the accused No.1 and three others showed him a knife and asked him the whereabouts of his father. He had informed them that his father had been to the office and he then came inside the house and the accused No.1 along with others went away. C.W.3 informed her that C.W.2 was not there in the shop and his vehicle is there. She came to know that some person had taken her son in an auto. Her husband who came back at 10-30 spoke to accused No.1 over the phone, they informed him that they had kidnapped their son and demanded Rs.20,00,000/-. Her husband brought C.W.2 to the house at 5-30 a.m. She stated that the accused had taken C.W.2 under the pretext that he is being called by his aunt. She stated that her husband and her mother-in-law had gone in the morning to bring her son, she stated that they had not paid Rs.20,00,000/- and does not know how much amount was given by her husband. She stated that she does not know about the conversation between her husband and the accused. She has not given any statement to the police.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she admitted that she had informed her husband that her son had gone 13 S.C.No.572/2014 missing and her husband returned back at 10-00 p.m. She admitted that the accused No.1 and others telephoned her husband and informed that their son is with them and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- for his release. She admitted that they have threatened to cut and chop her son into mutton pieces and throw it in front of their house. She admitted that her husband and her mother in-law gone to the spot told by the accused and had handed over Rs.50,000/-. She has denied the suggestion that her husband and her mother-in-law had paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused to get her son released. The accused had demanded monthly amount. She has denied the suggestion that she has given a statement to the police as per Ex.P.3. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely about the absence of the accused. She stated that she knows the names of other accused associated with the accused No.1, but she has not seen them.
The learned advocate for accused have chosen not to cross examine the witness.
13. P.W.4-Sri.Nagaiah Hiremath, A.S.I., has stated that on 12.01.2024 the Investigating Officer deputed him and C.W.14 to trace the accused and autorickshaw involved in the case. At 4-15 p.m., near White House, Babusapalya, they apprehended the accused No.4 with autorickshaw bearing No.KA-03-B-1921 and produced 14 S.C.No.572/2014 the accused along with the autorickshaw before the Investigating Officer and the deceased C.W.14 had then given a report as per Ex.P.5 to the Investigating Officer. He has identified the accused present before the court. He has identified the photo of the auto which is already marked as Ex.P.4.
It is pertinent to note that the said witness has not been cross examined by the learned advocate for accused.
14. P.W.5-Sri.Puttaswamy, Retired A.S.I., has stated that on 10.01.2014 at 10-05 p.m., C.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has registered the case and sent FIR (Ex.P.6) to the court. He then handed over the records to C.W.17.
The said witness has not been cross examined by the learned advocate for accused.
15. P.W.6-Smt.Prasheela, Police Inspector has stated that on 11.01.2014 she received the case file from C.W.16. She recorded the statement of C.W.2 and deputed C.Ws.14 and 15 to trace the accused on the basis of the physical features given by the accused. On the same day she visited the spot and in the presence of C.Ws.1 and 2 & panchas, she drew the mahazar (Ex.P.2) between 11-30 to 2-30 p.m. She seized the autorickshaw bearing No.CKQ-8845 near Block No.60, 15 S.C.No.572/2014 KHB Quarters where C.W.2 was confined. In this regard she has furnished P.F.No.5/2014 as per Ex.P.7. she has recorded the statements of witnesses and on the same day she received the information from Pulikeshinagar Police Station that the accused Nos.1 and 3 have been arrested. On 12.01.2014 at 4-45 p.m., C.Ws.14 and 15 produced the accused no.4 with autorickshaw bearing No.KA-03-B-1921 with a report (Ex.P.5). She seized the autorickshaw in the presence of C.Ws.8 and 9 under the mahazar (Ex.P.8). She recorded the statements of panchas and also recorded the statement of accused No.4. On 13.01.2014 she produced the accused No.4 before the court and the body warrant against the accused Nos.1 and 3 and took them to police custody from 7.02.2014 to 11.02.2014. On 8.02.2014 she recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 and 3. She has also recorded the statement of C.W.13. On 11.02.2014 she produced the accused Nos.1 and 3 before the court. On 28.03.2014 on completion of investigation she has filed the charge sheet against the accused. She has identified the photographs of the autorickshaws.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, she has denied the suggestion that she has prepared the mahazar in the Police Station. She has denied the suggestion that she has created all the documents for this case and she has seized different 16 S.C.No.572/2014 autorickshaw which is in no way connected in this case. She has denied the suggestion that she has filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
In her re-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is stated that on 11.04.2014 she received the information from Pulikeshinagar Police Station about the arrest of the accused No.5. On 4.08.2014 she filed additional charge sheet against the accused No.5.
In her cross examination by the learned advocate for accused, she has denied the suggestion that she has filed a false charge sheet against the accused.
16. P.W.7-Sri.Lohith has stated that on 8.01.2014 he was playing cricket in front of his house and at that time the accused came there and enquired with him about his father. The accused then went to their house at 1 st floor and the accused No.1 asked his mother about his father. She had informed the accused No.1 that his father had been to a meeting. The accused No.1 came down and thereafter he returned back to his house. C.W.2 who had been to a juice shop did not return back till 9-40, so he along with C.W.4 went in search of his brother and enquired with the owner of the said juice shop about his brother. He informed that 4 people had taken C.W.2 in an auto saying that his aunt is calling. At 11-00 p.m., the accused No.1 made a phone call to his father and informed him that c.W.2 is with them and 17 S.C.No.572/2014 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- to release him, otherwise they would kill him. At 1-00 a.m., they collected Rs.50,000/-. He along with his father and C.W.5 went near Indian Oil Flyover, they paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused No.1 and at 2-30 a.m., the accused released C.W.2. Th accused had demanded to pay money every month. The accused had made 5-6 calls to his father. C.W.2 informed them that at 9-30 p.m, when he was near the juice center, the accused had shown him a knife and took him and kept him in a old house. He had informed that the registration number of the auto as KA-03-B-1921. The accused No.1 had conversed with his brother in Tamil. The police had recorded his statement. He has identified the photograph (Ex.P.4).
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, it is elicited that he does not know to whom the auto belongs and he does not know as to who were there in the auto. It is elicited that there were 4 people in the auto and Mathew was driving it. He stated that he only knows the names of Anthony and Mathew. He stated that he knows three accused present before the court. He has denied the suggestion that even though he does not know anything about the case, he is deposing falsely.
17. P.W.8-Sri.Kajil Abdul Iftakar has identified his signature on the seizure mahazar (Ex.P.8) as per 18 S.C.No.572/2014 Ex.P.,8(b). He stated that he has signed the mahazar in Hennur Police Station where the police have seized the passenger auto, but he does not remember the number of the auto. He has identified the photograph (Ex.P.4). He stated that with respect to kidnap case, the police have apprehended the people who had driven the said witness.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as partly hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that on 12.01.2014 the police seized the auto and at that time Yousuff was also present with him. He admitted that at the time of seizure of the auto, Mathew was in the custody of the police. He has denied the suggestion that he came to know that the said accused along with other accused had kidnapped C.W.2, but stated that he has heard about it.
18. P.W.9-Smt.Sumathi has stated that she knows the accused Nos.1 and 3, but she does not know accused No.2. About 10 years ago in the night when she was in her house, the accused No.1 brought a boy to her house and then the accused No.1 called up the father of the boy and informed him that he had brought his son and demanded for Rs.10,00,000/- to release the boy. She stated that the accused No.1 had brought a 19 S.C.No.572/2014 10 years old boy and she can identify him. She has identified C.W.2-Hemantha Prasad who was present before the court. She stated that she does not know as to what the father of the boy told over the phone. Thereafter the police enquired with her. She stated that the accused No.1 has died. She has identified one of the two accused as Mathew.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor she has been treated as partly hostile. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is elicited that the accused No.1 used to take gas cylinder from her son-in-law. She has stated that the accused No.1 and her son-in-law have died. She admitted that the accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 used to come in front of her house. She admitted that the vehicle which was used for supplying the cylinders was being parked in front of her house.
The learned advocate for accused has chosen not to cross examine this witness.
19. P.W.10-Sri.Karthik has stated that on 11.01.2014 he has signed the mahazar (Ex.P.2) as per Ex.P.2(d). At first they went to the house of C.W.1 and then to the juice shop from there they went to the Police Station. He stated that he does not remember as to who was 20 S.C.No.572/2014 present with them at that time, but the accused Praveen was there. He stated that the police have enquired and he has put his signature in the Police Station. He has stated that the police did not seize any property in his presence. He has identified the photograph shown to him and has stated that the police seized it from accused No.1. He stated that the mahazar was conducted between 11-30 a.m., to 2-30 p.m. He has stated that C.W.1 was residing in 6 th Cross, Babusapalya, but he does not know the house number. He has stated that in the mahazar the police have written about going to various places.
As the witness has not supported the prosecution case, on the request of learned Public Prosecutor he has been treated as hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that C.W.1 was present at the time of mahazar and he has shown the place where his son was being kidnapped. He has admitted that the son of C.W.1 by name Hemantha Prasad was present at the spot and he was being kidnapped. He admitted that the accused had taken him to a juice shop made him to drink juice and taken him from there.
In his further cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he was first taken near the house of C.W.1, where C.Ws.1 and 2 were present. He admitted that he came to know that on 8.01.2014 at 21 S.C.No.572/2014 9-30 p.m., the accused No.1, 2 & 4 had been to the house of C.W.1 and enquired about C.W.1 and enquired with the wife of C.W.1 about C.W.1 who informed that C.W.1 had gone outside. He admitted that he came to know from accused No.1 by name Praveen that the accused had kidnapped C.W.2 near a juice shop and called up C.W.1 and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and if he fails to pay the amount, they would cut C.W.2 into pieces. He admitted that he came to know that C.W.1 had paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused and got released C.W.2 and accused No.1 had demanded to pay money to him every month and if he fails to do so, he would kill C.W.1. In this regard C.W.1 had lodged a complaint. He admitted that he was called to be a mahazar witness which was being conducted near the juice shop and accordingly on 11.01.2014 he went to the spot and C.Ws.1 and 2 were present. The police conducted the mahazar in their presence near the juice shop shown by C.W.2. He admitted that he was informed that auto bearing No.KA-03-B-1931 which belonged to accused Mathew was parked over there and C.W.2 was being kidnapped in the said auto. The said spot was shown by C.W.2. He admitted that C.W.2 had shown Metro Bar where the accused No.1 had gone to buy drinks and from there he was taken near Naidu Hotel situated near Raghavendra Temple and from there the accused No.1 brought food and gave it to C.W.2. He admitted that they then went to the house of Sumathi situated at 1 st 22 S.C.No.572/2014 floor, 16th Block, KHB Layout, near Don Bosco Church, Lingarajapura. He has admitted that at the time of mahazar, C.W.2 and Praveen were present. He admitted that the accused Praveen had shown the places where he had gone after kidnapped. He admitted that the police seized the auto bearing No.CKQ 8843 which was being used by the accused for kidnapping. He admitted that the mahazazr was being conducted between 11-30 a.m., to 2-30 p.m., at various places and finally the mahazar was completed near Sevanagar Bridge situated near Bata Showroom. He has identified the photograph of the auto (Ex.P.3). He admitted that the police seized auto bearing No.KA-03-AB-1921 which can be seen in the photo (Ex.P.4) along with the accused.
In his cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, he admitted that he does not know the accused present before the court. He has denied the suggestion that the police took his signature on the blank paper. He admitted that the police did not give him any notice asking him to be a witness to the mahazar. It is elicited that he does not know to read Kannada, as such he does not know as to what is written in the mahazar. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as per the instructions of the police.
20. On considering the oral and documentary 23 S.C.No.572/2014 evidence placed before the court, it is at first pertinent to note that on 21.04.2018 the accused No.1 was reported to be dead and his death certificate was furnished and my predecessor has abated the proceedings against accused No.1. In S.C.No.572/2014, the case was proceeded against the accused Nos.3 and
4. As the accused Nos.2 and 5 were absconding, the learned Magistrate on securing the presence of accused No.5 committed the case against accused No.5 and in S.C.No.964/2014, the court proceeded the case against the accused No.5. Hence, out of 5 accused persons, the accused No.1 is dead, accused No.2 is absconding and the court proceeded with trial against the accused Nos.3 to 5.
21. THE EVIDENCE OF VICTIM:
The victim has been arrayed as C.W.2 in the charge sheet. He has been examined as P.W.2 on 25.05.2016 i.e., 2 years after the incident. At the time of recording of his examination in chief, the victim was aged about 15 years and at the time of alleged kidnapping in 2014, he was 13 years of age. Due to the delay in the cross examination on the part of the learned advocate for the accused and finally on 12.08.2025 he was cross examined by the learned advocate for the accused Nos.3 & 5 and as on that date, the victim was 24 years of age.24 S.C.No.572/2014
22. In his examination in chief, he deposed about him being kidnapped on 8.01.2014 at 9-30 p.m. He has specifically stated throughout his examination that "they" kept knife at his waist, they took him in an auto, they telephoned his father, they took him near Bata Showroom, C.W.1 paid Rs.50,000/- to the said person and they released him. He has stated that 5 people came in an auto and threatened him with a knife and asked him to climb the auto. He has identified the accused Nos.3 and 4 present before the court and as on 25.05.2016, accused No.1 was not present before the court and his advocate had not objected regarding the identification of the accused No.1.
23. Even before considering the cross examination of the victim (C.W.2), it is pertinent to note that one cannot expect a perfect evidence explaining each and every event that had occurred after he was being kidnapped. From his evidence it can be safely said that he was kidnapped by the accused No.1 along with others. Even though he has not specifically stated the role of each of the accused persons, it is pertinent to note that the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 who were present at the time of his examination in chief were identified by the victim. The minor victim has given evidence regarding the ransom of Rs.50,000/- has been paid by his father. He has also stated that he had given the telephone number of his father to the accused persons.
25 S.C.No.572/2014He has specifically stated that he was abducted, detained and was released. He has also specifically stated that the accused who had telephoned his father (P.W.1) had threatened to kill him if he fails to pay the ransom amount. Here itself it is pertinent to note that as on the date of examination in chief on 25.05.2016 the advocate for accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 had sought time and the cross examination was taken as nil. Thereafter on 12.08.2025 in the cross examination done by the advocate for accused Nos.3 and 5 which has been adopted by accused No.4, it is elicited in his cross examination that "ಪ್ರ ವೀಣ್ಅನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಇತರೆ ಮೂರು ಜನರ ಹೆಸರು ಮತ್ತು ಅವರು ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಿ ರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". From the said suggestion, it can be safely said that he does not know the names of 3 accused persons and they were unknown to him. But after lapse of more than 9 years, he would have known the names of the accused persons, no convincing explanation is forthcoming as to why the victim has chosen not to identify the accused and tell their names.
24. Further it is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 that "ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದ ಮುಂದೆ ಇರುವ 3, 4, 5 ನೇ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳ ವೈಯುಕ್ತಿ ಕ ಪರಿಚಯ ನನಗೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". From the suggestion it can be safely said that the victim was specifically suggested that he personally does not know the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5, to which the victim 26 S.C.No.572/2014 has answered in the affirmative.
25. Further it is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 that "ಸದರಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಕೇಸಿಗಾಗಿ ಬಂದಾಗ ನೋಡಿರುತ್ತೆ ೇನೆ, ಮನೆ ಹತ್ತಿ ರ ಅಥವಾ ಬಡಾವಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ". In this regard, it is pertinent to note that from the said cross examination, it can be safely said that the victim had not seen the said accused near his house or in his locality. Here itself it is pertinent to note that C.W.2 who was being kidnapped from his locality and as per the evidence placed before the court, the accused No.4 stays in the same locality and owns an auto. When that being so, the victim admitting that he had not seen the accused No.4 in his locality raises doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the victim/C.W.2.
26. In the present case, it is alleged that the victim was being kidnapped in the auto belonging to accused No.4. But it is pertinent to note that the victim nor any of the eye witnesses i.e., surrounding shop keepers have stated the number of the auto in which the victim was taken. Also no evidence placed before the court to establish that on the alleged day, the accused No.4 was in the auto.
27. In the present case, it is alleged that 5 people are involved in kidnapping C.W.2. To ascertain the identify 27 S.C.No.572/2014 the accused and the role played by them, it is the primary duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct Test Identification Parade without any delay, but same has not been done. The non-conducting of Test Identification Parade by the Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution as the victim was not familiar with accused prior to the date of incident and the incident has occurred in the night hours.
28. Further from the examination in chief of victim/C/W/2, it can be said that 5 people were involved in his kidnapping. One of the accused had received ransom of Rs.50,000/- from his father and then he was released by then. Even though he has identified accused Nos.3, 4 & 5 and there is no dispute regarding the identity of accused No.1, but his evidence does not give a clear picture as to which of the accused showed him a knife, which of the accused received money from his father and also which of the accused was driving the auto in which he was taken and the auto in which he had returned back. The prosecution has failed to elicit in his evidence about the role of accused Nos.3 to 5 whom he has identified. But it is the primary duty of the prosecution to bring out in his evidence as to how he knows accused Nos.3 to 5 and as to whether they were in the auto in which he was taken.
28 S.C.No.572/201429. THE EVIDENCE OF FATHER, MOTHER AND BROTHER OF THE VICTIM :
Even before appreciating the evidence of the father, mother and brother of the victim, it is necessary to note that none of them were present at the time of the alleged incident.
30. From the evidence of P.W.1 it can be safely said on the demand of accused No.1 to release his son he had paid Rs.50,000/- near Indian Oil Bridge situated at Bata showroom near Banasawadi. Through out his examination in chief he has deposed about the incident which he came to know from his son C.W.2.
31. Further from his evidence, it can be safely said that when he gone to pay the ransom amount of Rs.50,000/-, the accused No.1, 3, absconding accused No.2 and accused No.5 had come outside the auto and after accused No.1 received Rs.50,000/- he made a signal to other accused to release his son C.W.2.
32. Here itself it is necessary to refer to the complaint (Ex.P.1) lodged by C.W.1 on 10.01.2014 which is said to have been given by him after getting his son released from the accused. In the complaint, he has stated that on 8.01.2014 Praveen i.e., deceased accused No.1 along with others had come near his house. And then on the same day at 10-00 p.m., his 29 S.C.No.572/2014 younger son Hemanth Prasad had gone to N.P.Juice Shop situated opposite to Santhosh Wines in Babusapalya Main Road to bring juice to his mother where the accused Praveen had informed his son that his aunt is calling him and took his son along with him. The accused Praveen along with others asked to touch the knife which was kept by Praveen in his waist and threatened to kill him and forcibly took him in an auto. He has stated that thereafter from the mobile No.844565393 belong to Praveen he got a call to his mobile No.9844277569 and he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and made him to speak to his son when his son informed him that he was along with Praveen, Santhosh, Micheal and another person. He was threatened that if he informed the same to the police or anyone else, his son would be killed and he is not afraid of anyone as he used going to the jail. He had told the accused that he would arrange Rs.50,000/- and he would pay the remaining amount on the next day morning. The accused had asked him to come alone near Sevanagar, IOC Bridge situated near Bata Showroom and in the midnight of 2-00 a.m., he along with his mother Vatsala Devi took Rs.50,000/- and went to the spot in his vehicle. At that time Praveen came near him and showed him an auto and informed that his son sitting in the said auto. He gave Rs.50,000/- to Praveen. Praveen gave the money to Santhosh to brought his son and handed him over to him. He was 30 S.C.No.572/2014 threatened that if he informed the same to anyone, he would kill all of them and on the date of the complaint in the morning hours Praveen had called up through his mobile No.9972116306 and demanded for remaining balance amount.
33. On considering the evidence of C.W.1/P.W.1 along with the complaint (Ex.P.1), it can be safely said that C.W.1 had seen only the accused No.1-Praveen and absconding accused No.2-Santhosh at the place where he handed over the money to accused No.1 Praveen. Even though in the complaint (Ex.P.1), he has stated that his son had informed him that Praveen, Santhosh, Micheal were there, but he has not stated the same in his examination in chief. Also he has not stated in his evidence that the accused had given the phone to his son to speak to him. Also in the evidence of the victim C.W.2, he has only stated that the accused had called up his father C.W.1 and has stated that his father P.W.1 had given Rs.50,000/- to the said person near Bata Showroom. He has nowhere stated in his evidence that he had spoken to his father over the phone.
34. Further in the evidence of the mother of victim i.e., P.W.3, she has deposed about accused No.1 coming along with others to her house and enquiring about her husband C.W.1. She has also stated that her son C.W.2 was being kidnapped in an auto. Her 31 S.C.No.572/2014 evidence is totally silent about her husband informing her that he had spoken with her son (C.W.2) over the phone. She has also not stated in her examination in chief about the names of any of the accused persons. In her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, she has stated that she knows the name of the other accused associated with accused No.1, but has not seen them. From which it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused Nos.2 to 5 had gone with accused No.1 to the house of C.W.1 in his absence and had spoken with his wife. In the evidence of the brother of victim i.e., C.W.3, even he has deposed about accused No.1 coming over to his house along with others and enquiring about his father. According to him, he had gone along with his father and C.W.5 to pay Rs.50,000/- and get his brother released.
35. But in the evidence of C.W.1, victim (C.W.2) and in the complaint (Ex.P.1) there is no mention of C.W.3 going to the spot to pay the ransom amount. On the contrary, C.W.1 has stated in the examination in chief that his wife (P.W.3) was hugged by their son after he was being released. Hence the evidence of C.W.3 cannot be relied upon.
36. Here itself, it is pertinent to note that the accused are alleged to have kept the minor boy (C/.W.2) 32 S.C.No.572/2014 in the house of C.W.12/P.W.9. She has specifically deposed that the accused had brought 10 years old boy to her house and made a call to the boy's father demanding Rs.10,00,000/-. Even though she was treated as partly hostile, in her cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, no suggestion is made to the effect that the accused Nos.2 to 5 had brought a boy (C.W.2) to her house with accused No.1. It is only elicited that she had seen the accused Nos.2 to 5 in front of her house.
37. As discussion made supra, the victim (C.W.2) was subjected to examination in chief on 25.05.2016 i.e., almost 2 years of the incident. He has identified the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. But during his cross examination on 12.08.2025 by the learned advocate for accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 i.e., when he was about 24 years, he has specifically stated about the role played by the accused No.1-Praveen. It is also elicited that he does not know their names and he does not know them. It is also elicited that he seeing the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 only when he came to the court.
38. From the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, it can be safely said that the accused No.1 has kidnapped C.W.2 and made a call for ransom and the accused No.2 who is the absconding 33 S.C.No.572/2014 accused was present when C.W.1 was given money to the accused No.1. But the prosecution has not placed any convincing evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the role of accused Nos.3 to 5 in the commission of offence. The accused No.1 is dead. Hence, the case against him is abated. Hence, it is held that the prosecution has proved that the accused No.1 has committed the offence, but as he is dead during pendency of the case, the case against him is abated. In the absence of Test Identification Parade and in the absence of corroborating & convincing evidence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
39. POINT No.3: In view of my findings on Points No.1 and 2 as above, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
the accused Nos.3 and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.34 S.C.No.572/2014
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.3 and 4 stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of January 2026) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:
P.W.1 Saravana
P.W.2 Hemanth Prasad
P.W.3 Chitra
P.W.4 Nagaiah Hiremath
P.W.5 Puttaswamy
P.W.6 Prasheela.B.S.
P.W.7 Lohith
P.W.8 Kajil Abdul Ifthakar
P.W.9 Sumathi
P.W.10 Karthik
List of documents exhibited for prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of P.W.10
Ex.P.3 Photo of the autorickshaw
Ex.P.4 Photo of the black colour auto
Ex.P.5 Report of C.W.14
35 S.C.No.572/2014
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of C.W.14
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.6 F.I.R.
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.7 Property Form
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.8 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.9 Property Form
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.6
List of Material Objects produced and got marked for production:
- Nil -
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for accused:
-Nil-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by RASHMI RASHMI M Date:
M 2026.01.07
10:54:06
+0530