Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs No.1 Dharmaram on 12 November, 2019
Spl.C.C.554/2014
1
bIN THE COURT OF THE L ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE
Dated this the 12 th Day of November 2019
- : PRESENT: -
SMT. SUSHEELA. B.A. LL.B.
L Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
SPECIAL C.C. No.554/2014
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka
By Cotton Pete Police Station,
Bangalore.
[Public Prosecutor-Bangalore]
/ VERSUS /
ACCUSED No.1 Dharmaram
S/o. Megharam, Aged 23 years,
R/at Sandiya Village,
Sojath Thana, Pali District.
Rajasthan.
ACCUSED No.2 Jithendra
S/o. Bhavarlal, Aged 20 years,
R/at Sangriya Village,
Luni Post and Taluk,
Pasim Thana,
Jodhpur District,
Rajasthan
[Smt.SDU & Sri.E.T.D
A-1 & 2-Advocate.]
Spl.C.C.554/2014
2
1 Date of commission of offence 13-08-2014
2 Date of report of occurrence 13-08-2014
3 Date of arrest of Accused No.1 & 2 08-09-2014
Period undergone in custody Accused No.1 & 2
by Accused No.1 & 2 are in J.C. till this
day
4 Date of commencement of evidence 03-08-2015
5 Date of closing of evidence 18-12-2017
6 Name of the complainant Amul Ram @
Aman Ram
7 Offences complained of Sect.364-A r/w. 34-IPC
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 & 2
are convicted
9 Order of Sentence As per the final order
J U D GM EN T
This charge sheet filed by Police Inspector of Cotton Pete
Police Station-Bangalore against the accused No.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with section
34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the
prosecution papers, is stated as follows:
Spl.C.C.554/2014
3
The complainant-Cw.1-Amul Ram @ Aman Ram, residing
at Cotton Pete Main Road, Subramanya Lane, Bangalore, within
limits of Cotton Pete Police Station-Bangalore. His children viz.,
Cw.11-Mohit @ Vikas aged about 6 years and Cw.12-Tamanna
aged about 8 years, who were pupils of Versus International
School of Rajaji Nagar 6 th Block, Bangalore. On 13-08-2014 at
about 04.30p.m., they got down from the school bus in front of
Adi Lakshmi Provision Stores and were on the way towards
their home by walk. At that time the accused No.1 and 2 came
in a motor-bike behind them, called Cw.11-Vikas stating that
they are going to give him Chocolate, when Cw.11 went near
them, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped him in
their motor bike. Thereafter, they called Cw.1-the father of
Vikas-Amul Ram over phone stating that they have kidnapped
his son and also demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs to
them, otherwise they are going to kill the victim boy. During
the course of investigation Cw.14 to Cw.17, Cw.21, Cw.22,
Cw.25 to Cw.27, traced the accused at Harishchandra burial
ground, within the limits of Srirampura Police station and when
Spl.C.C.554/2014
4
they proceeded to caught hold the accused No.1 and 2, they
assaulted Cw.14 and Cw.15 through their knife and made them
to suffer injuries and also made attempt to kill them. At that
time Cw.26 and Cw.27 used their Departmental pistols and
fired on the legs of the accused No.1 and 2 and both the
accused persons received injuries to their legs. Thereafter, the
police taken the accused No.1 and 2, rescued Cw.11-Vikas-the
victim boy from the hands of the accused No.1 and 2 and
handed over him to his father and also the accused No.1 and 2
were admitted to K.C. General Hospital for treatment. On 08-
09-2014 Cw.18 to Cw.20 taken the accused No.1 and 2 to their
custody from the hospital, produced them before Cw.23, in turn
Cw.23 arrested the accused No.1 and 2 as per oral order of
Cw.27.
3. The Investigation Officer has investigated the same
and filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the
offences punishable under Section 363, 364-A read with section
34 of IPC. Thereafter, after filing of charge sheet the accused
Spl.C.C.554/2014
5
No.1 and 2 were produced before the Court from judicial
custody. The copy of charge sheet furnished to them as
contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The committal Court
passed an order for committing the case to the Hon'ble Principal
City Civil & Session Judge-Bangalore, since the victim is minor
and the said case is exclusively triable by the Child Court and
in turn the said case was made over to this Court for further
proceedings.
4. After receiving the record by this Court, the accused
No.1 and 2 were produced from J.C. The learned advocate for
accused No.1 and 2 submitted no arguments before framing
charge and requested to frame charge. As a result, the learned
predecessor in office framed charge under section 364-A of IPC.
The contents of charge read over and explained to the accused
No.1 and 2 in Kannada. They pleaded not guilty and submit
crime to be tried. Thereafter, the case against accused No.1 and
2 was set down for prosecution evidence.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
Spl.C.C.554/2014
6
accused No.1 and 2 has examined in all 21 witnesses as Pw.1 to
Pw.21, got marked 23 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and
closed its side evidence. In view of available incriminating
evidence appeared against accused No.1 and 2, they were
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by recording their
statement. They denied the alleged incriminating evidence
appeared against them as false. The learned advocate for
accused No.1 and 2 filed written arguments. Heard arguments
of learned Public Prosecutor and the matter is set down for
judgment.
6. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and
arguments submitted by both the sides, the following points
that arise for my consideration are as under:-
1. ¢ನನನಕ:13-08-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3-40 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ZÁ¸Á-1
²æÃ.CªÀÄƯï gÁªÀiï C°AiÀiÁ¸ï CªÀiÁ£ï gÁªÀiïgÀÀªÀgÀ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á
11 ªÉÆûvï C°AiÀiÁ¸ï «PÁ¸ï ºÁUÀÆ ZÁ¸Á 12 PÀĪÀiÁj vÀªÀÄ£Áß EªÀj§âgÀÆ PÁl£ï
¥ÉÃmÉ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀħæªÀÄtå ¯Éãï, PÁl£ï ¥ÉÃmÉ ªÀÄÄRå
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï §¸ï E½zÀÄ D¢®Qëäà ¥Áæ«d£ï ¸ÉÆÖÃgï ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ ¥sÀÅmï ¥Ávï
ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ಆರರರರಪ-1 ಮತತತ 2, ಹನಬದಯನದ ¢éZÀPÀæ
ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è ಬನದತ ZÁ¸Á-11 £ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á®PÀ£À£ÀÄß «PÁ¸ï JAzÀÄ PÀÆV ZÁPÀ¯ÉÃmï
PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¨Á JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀgÉzÀÄ ತ ªÀÄä ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è C¥ÀºÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV
£ÀAvÀgÀ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ¤ಮಮ ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ C¥ÀºÀj¹zÉÝÃªÉ gÀÆ.30
®PÀëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÉ ©qÀĪÀÅzÁV E®èªÁzÀ°è ಆತನ ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ
¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.364- ಎ ಸಹವನಚಕ ಕಲನ.34 ರಡಯಲಲ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
7
²PÁëºÀðªÁzÀ C¥ÀgÁzÀsªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVzÁÝgÀÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæ¹PÀÆåµÀ£ï ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀÀªÁV
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. ಯನವ ಆದರರಶ?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per the final orders for the following:
R EA S ON S
8. Point No.1: Perused the entire record, charge sheet,
evidence produced both at oral and documentary testimony
produced by the prosecution and arguments canvassed by both
sides, coupled with written arguments submitted by the learned
advocate for the accused No.1 and 2.
9. In order to prove the alleged offences against the
accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution examined in all 21
witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.21, got marked 23 documents as Ex.P1
to Ex.P23. As per the prosecution case, Pw.1 is the complainant
and father of victim boy, Pw.2 is the victim boy, Pw.3 is the eye-
witness, Pw.4 to Pw.10 are the Panch witnesses, Pw.14 is the
owner of the motor bike, Pw.11 to Pw.13 and Pw.15 to Pw.21
Spl.C.C.554/2014
8
are the police personnel and Investigation Officer. Hence, this
Court shall proceed to see whether the available evidence of
said witnesses is sufficient for establishing the alleged offences
against the accused No.1 and 2.
10. In order to establish the alleged offences against
accused No.1 and 2 the prosecution is required to prove that
the complainant-Cw.1-Amul Ram @ Aman Ram, residing at
Cotton Pete Main Road, Subramanya Lane, Bangalore, within
limits of Cotton Pete Police Station-Bangalore. His children viz.,
Cw.11-Mohit @ Vikas aged about 6 years and Cw.12-Tamanna
aged about 8 years, are studying at Versus International School
of Rajaji Nagar 6th Block, Bangalore, on 13-08-2014 at about
04.30p.m., they got down from the school bus in front of Adi
Lakshmi Provision Stores and are on the way towards the house
by walk. At that time the accused No.1 and 2 came in a motor-
bike behind them, called Cw.11-Vikas stating that they are
going to give him Chocolate, when Cw.11 went near them, the
accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped him in their motor bike.
Spl.C.C.554/2014
9
Thereafter, they called Cw.1-the father of Vikas-Amul Ram over
phone stating that they have kidnapped his son and also
demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs to them, otherwise
they are going to kill the victim boy. During the course of
investigation Cw.14 to Cw.17, Cw.21, Cw.22, Cw.25 to Cw.27,
traced the accused No.1 and 2 at Harishchandra burial ground,
within the limits of Srirampura Police station and when they
proceeded to caught hold the accused No.1 and 2, they
assaulted Cw.14 and Cw.15 through their knife and made them
to suffer injuries and also made attempt to kill them. At that
time Cw.26 and Cw.27 used their Departmental pistols and
fired on the legs of the accused No.1 and 2 and both the
accused persons received injuries to their legs. Thereafter, the
police taken the accused No.1 and 2, rescued Cw.11-Vikas-the
victim boy from the hands of the accused No.1 and 2 and
handed over him to his father and also the accused No.1 and 2
were admitted to K.C. General Hospital for treatment. On 08-
09-2014 Cw.18 to Cw.20 taken the accused No.1 and 2 to their
custody from the hospital, produced them before Cw.23, in turn
Spl.C.C.554/2014
10
Cw.23 arrested the accused No.1 and 2 as per oral order of
Cw.27 and thereby committed offences punishable under
Section 364-A read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, this Court
shall proceed to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing all the aforesaid ingredients of the alleged offences
against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. Before venturing into scan the available materials
evidence on record, it is necessary to mention the very definition
of offences under Section 364-A read with section 34 of IPC.
Section 364-A of IPC defines that:
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 death, or causes hurt or hurt to such person in
order to compel the Government or any foreign State or
international inter-Governmental organization or any other
person to do so or abstain from doing any act or to pay
ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment of
life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 of IPC defines that:
Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention:- When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as it were done by him alone.
Spl.C.C.554/2014
11
By going through the facts, circumstances and available
material evidence both at oral and documentary, it is just and
proper to consider the available material attracts the very
ingredients of above said offences in order to fix the liability on
the accused No.1 and 2 or it probablises the defense of the
accused No.1 and 2.
12. By going through the evidence of Pw.1-Aman Ram,
he has deposed that from 2005 he is doing cloth business in
Chikka Pete. He has got three children viz., Deepak, Tamanna
and Mohith @ Vikas and now his age is six years. Both
Tamanna and Mohith are studying at Venus International
School, they both together go to school in a private van, the
school hours is morning 9'O Clock to noon at 3'O Clock and
both the children used to go to school together and return to
home and his another son-Deepak was returning to home at
04.30 p.m. The distance between his house and cloth business
shop is half-a-Km and 10 minutes walkable distance.
13. Further Pw.1 deposed that when he was in his shop
Spl.C.C.554/2014
12
a received phone call at 03.10 p.m., or 03.20 p.m., from the
house of his neighbouring resident. At that time his daughter-
Tamanna talked from the said phone stating that she and
Mohith got down from the School van near the house and on
the way to the house in the main road two boys came stating
that they are going to give chocolate and boarded Mohith in
their two wheeler. After hearing about the incident, immediately
he return to home, by that time persons were assembled at that
spot, immediately he went to Cotton Pete Police station along
with his daughter and brought the police near his house. The
police enquired about the incident at spot and return to the
station along with his daughter.
14. Further Pw.1 deposed that on the way to the police
station he received phone call from unknown number stating
that don't go to police station, his son is with them and
immediately the said call was disconnected. Thereafter he went
to the station, immediately five minutes of reaching the station,
again he has received phone call stating that his son is with
Spl.C.C.554/2014
13
them and if he has gone to the police station, he is going to kill
his son and also demanded Rs.30 Lakhs from him and
disconnected the phone call. Again after 10-15 minutes he
received same phone call, at that time the Inspector told him to
put the phone on speaker, he has switched on the speaker, at
that time he demanded amount and also directed him to bring
the same at early and he is not going to do anything to his son
and also directed him to come alone and if he brings any person
along with him, he is going to kill his son. Again he has
received phone call, at that time this witness told that he is
unable to ride his vehicle due to fear and requested them to
allow him to come in an auto and went to the spot in an auto.
At that time the police personnel in Civil dress followed him in
another auto. When he reached Mantri Mall, again he received
Phone call stating that he has to come to Chandrashekar Azad
Park at Malleshwaram, again he went to Chandrashekar Azad
Park and tried to contact the said person over phone by dialing
the same number, but he didn't receive his phone call, again he
waited for half-an-hour in an auto at that place and it was
Spl.C.C.554/2014
14
raining at that time.
15. Further Pw.1 deposed that at that time he received
phone call from Woman Police Inspector and he went to Police
station. The police obtained his signature and return to home.
The police brought his son to his house. Ex.P1 is the complaint
and his signature is Ex.P1(a). He has enquired his son, but he
was under fear state of mind, as such he has not enquired any
details. The police taken his son to the hospital for medical
check up. Thereafter through T.V.News he came to know
that one Dharam Ram and Jitendra kidnapped his son, his
mobile number is 9448840527 and the police seized his mobile
with SIM and also conducted mahazar in the police station and
also recorded the conversation of the mobile into a C.D. The
seizure mahazar is Ex.P2. Here the evidence of this witness
remains unassailed. Having given opportunity to the accused
persons, but they have not cross-examined this witness
16. In the written arguments the learned advocate for
the accused No.1 and 2, argued that the accused persons were
Spl.C.C.554/2014
15
working in the shop of the complainant, inspite of it he has not
mentioned their names in the complaint and what made him to
hide the same is not forthcoming, as such it is not safe to
accept his evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Here having
given an opportunity by the accused No.1 and 2 they have slept
over their defense. Mere canvassing in the arguments, it is not
safe to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. Even on perusal
of Ex.P1 it discloses whatever information received from his
daughter about the kidnap of his son-Mohith and after that he
has received phone call from the kidnappers. When he has
corroborated the contents of Ex.P1, it is not safe to disbelieve
his evidence against the accused No.1 and 2. At this stage,
through the evidence of Pw.1-the complainant, the prosecution
proves the offences against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt. Now left with the evidence of Pw.2-the victim
boy.
17. By going through the evidence of Pw.2-the victim boy
and son of complainant, he has deposed that Cw.12-Tamanna
Spl.C.C.554/2014
16
is his sister, Deepak is his brother, he is studying in 1 st
standard, himself and his sister-Tamanna and brother-Deepak
are all studying in Venus International School, all the three
persons are using school van to go to their school and to return
to home. Further he has deposed that on that day he and his
sister got down from the school van to go to their home, at that
time one person called him stating that he is giving Chocolate to
him and also identified the accused persons who were present
before Court and stated that they called him of giving Chocolate
and also taken him in a two wheeler to their house, given Chips
to him and thereafter they have taken him to a office, at that
time the police came there, beaten them and when they brought
him he was crying and the accused persons not given any
trouble to him. At the time of getting down from the school van,
his sister was along with him and they return to home in the
said van at about 03.00 p.m.,
18. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence
of this witness and elicited that he has knowledge of the Court,
Spl.C.C.554/2014
17
when he was shown the accused persons and asked him
whether he knows them, he replied that he knew Dharma-the
accused No.1 as he was working with his father, he used to
come to his house and he is well known to him. He has not
spoken about the vehicle or business, he has not given any
information about the building/place of office from where he
was taken to his house by the police. He was not taken to
police station. When he came to home, at that time his mother
was there at the home and his father was in the shop. When he
was asked that they have offered chocolates and police rescued
he has answered yes. Here no doubt it is true at the time of
cross-examination the victim boy admitted the question that the
learned Public Prosecutor has stated about the incident. But
the evidence of this witness is recorded in the year 2015, at that
time he was studying 1st standard, the incident was taken place
during the year 2014 when this witness was studying Ukg.
Here this witness clearly stated that the accused persons had
taken him to the house and he is not telling lie and also they
given Chocolate to him and it is also not false. It is his definite
Spl.C.C.554/2014
18
answer that he was going to school in school van. When such
being the case, it is not safe to disbelieve about his kidnap by
the accused persons by saying that they are going to give
Chocolate to him.
19. By going through the evidence of Pw.3-Tamanna, the
sister of the victim boy and also eye-witness to the incident, she
has deposed that: "¢ನನನಕ B13-8-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÁl£ï ¥ÉÃmÉ
ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ±Á¯Á ªÁºÀ£À¢AzÀ E½zɪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä «PÁ¸ï §gÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ «PÁ¸ï JAzÀÄ
fvÉÃAzÀæ PÀÆVzÀ£ÀÄ. fvÉÃAzÀæ£ÀÄ ZÁPÉÆïÉÃmï PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ, ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃqÁ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ
£À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä D ªÀåQÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛãÉ
JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À PÉÊAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÆ ©r¹PÉÆAqÀÄ fvÉÃAzÀæ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆgÀlÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. MlÄÖ E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ n.«.J¸ï ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÉÆA¢UÉ EzÀÝgÀÄ, M§â ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ n.«.J¸ï.
£À°è PÀĽwzÀÝ£ÀÄ, ªÀÄvÉÆۧ⠪ÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀĽvÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ
£ÀªÀÄä ©°ØAUï£À°è £É® ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ M§â DAnUÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÉ£ÀÄ. ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
E®è, ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ DAn ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è M§â CAPÀ¯ï CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß
vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ K£Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß
vÀAzÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄÆ §AzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ. C°è ¥Éǰøï CAPÀ¯ï AiÀiÁªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è EzÁÝUÀ PàgÉzÀÄ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
19
PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ D ¸ÀܼÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÉ£ÀÄ". Further she has
deposed that: "£À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ MAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï §A¢vÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ £À£Àß §½ EzÁÝ£É, ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ
ºÉýzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĨÉÃr ¥ÉǰøÀjUÉ
ºÉüÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. CµÀÖgÀ°è ¥sÉÆãï PÀmÁÖ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £ÁªÀÅ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÀÅ.
¥ÀÅ£ÀB £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï §A¢vÀÄ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÄÛ ®PÀë PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ rªÀiÁAqï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ
¥Éǰøï CAPÀ¯ï MAzÀÄ ¨ÁåUÀ£À°è §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖ ªÉÄïÁãUÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ElÖgÀÄ. DmÉÆÃzÀ°è
£À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®gï qÉæ¸ï£À°è EzÀÝ ¥Éǰøï CAPÀ¯ï ¨ÁåUÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ". She has
also shown the accused No.2 is the person who had taken her
brother stating that he is going to give Chocolate, thereafter
both the accused persons taken him in their two wheeler. This
witness clearly deposed about incident and identified the
accused persons before the Court.
20. The accused persons tested her veracity by eliciting
some commission and omission, except denial suggestion,
nothing has been elicited favourable to the defense taken by
them. Further she was also tested in respect of school van, how
many children are going in that van, whether any other children
get down from the school van at the place where this witness
Spl.C.C.554/2014
20
and her brother-the victim boy get down from the school van
and also elicited that: "D E§âgÀÆ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ PÀqÉUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ D E§âgÀÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁl£ï¥ÉÃmÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ
PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ PÁl£ï ¥ÉÃmÉ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛ PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉAzÀÄ, D
E§âgÀÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F E§âgÀÄ §AzÀzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀéEZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¥ÀÅ£ÀB £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä «PÁ¸À£À£ÀÄß CzÉà ¢£À gÁwæ 10-30 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ©°ØAUï£À°è
ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹zÀ DAnAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¯ÁåAqï¯ÉÊ£ï¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ. F
ªÀåQÛAiÉÄà fvÉÃAzÀæ JAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ºÉÃUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ n.«AiÀÄ°è
vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2£Éà ¢£À n.«AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ. D E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
n.«AiÀÄ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ, £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ,
£Á£ÀÄ DUÀ n.«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzÀsð UÀAmÉ PÁ® £ÉÆÃrzÉ£ÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ D n.«AiÀÄ°è K£ÀÄ £ÉÆÃr¢gÉÆà CzÀ£ÉßÃ
E°è ºÉý¢j JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". Having elicited
the above said evidence, the accused persons not denied stating
that they have not kidnapped her brother-the victim boy and
through the evidence of Pw.3, the prosecution proved the
offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2 as per the
prosecution case and the accused persons failed to establish
their defense in the cross-examination of this witness beyond all
Spl.C.C.554/2014
21
reasonable doubt.
21. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 by
filing written arguments stated that this witness identified the
accused No.1 and 2 through watching TV and Pw.3 personally
says that the boy-Jithendra is well known to their family
members and the father and daughter have mis-guided the
police by giving wrong information. But at the same time no
such supporting defence placed by the accused No.1 and 2
while cross-examining Pw.3 and the evidence of Pw.1 remains
unassailed.
22. With regard to the mahazar conducted at the place of
incident shown by Pw.3 to the police, the prosecution produces
the evidence of Pw.4. By going through the evidence of Pw.4-
Krishna, he has deposed that on 13-08-2014 at about
05.00/05.30 p.m., he was on the way from Cotton Pete Main
road towards Shanthala side, at that time P.S.I.-Sowmya called
and informed him about the incident at Adilakshmi Provision
Stores and also requested him to act as Pancha and at that time
Spl.C.C.554/2014
22
the sister of victim boy was present and showed the incident
spot, the police conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3 in front of him
and Cw.3-Shivajanam and Ex.P3(a) is his signature. The said
girl also told two persons came in a motor bike, called her
brother as Vikas and taken him in their two wheeler. The said
mahazar was drawn for about 45 minutes to one hour.
23. The accused persons tested veracity of the evidence
of this witness and with regard to his presence at that place and
also denied the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 by
denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same. With regard
to the process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3, the accused
persons failed to establish their defense in the cross-
examination and the evidence in respect of process of
conducting mahazar became unshaken, as such this Court feels
to observe that that the prosecution establishes the process of
conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3 through this witness.
24. The prosecution further produces the evidence
through Pw.5 and Pw.6 in respect of seizure of Samsung mobile
Spl.C.C.554/2014
23
phone of complainant with regard to the demand made by
kidnappers who are the accused No.1 and 2. By going through
the evidence of Pw.5-Wagha Ram, he has deposed that he has
seen the accused persons in the police station, on 15-08-2014
at about 01.30 p.m., the Cotton Pete Police called him and he
went along with Bhavar Lal, in the police station the
complainant was also present and produced his Samsung
mobile phone before police, the police conducted seizure
mahazar in the police station and seized the said mobile and
also before seizing the same recorded the conversation held
between the complainant and the accused persons who are the
kidnappers. The said conversation also heard by him and in
that conversation it is stated that: "CzÀgÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁªÀiïgÀªÀgÀ
£ÀqÀÄªÉ DVgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉ EvÀÄÛ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ PÉý¹ PÉÆArzÉÝãÉ. CzÀÄ »A¢ ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ.
ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀjUÉ "ªÀÄAwæ ªÀiÁ¯ïPÉÆ DªÉÇ" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ.
CªÀiÁ£ïgÁAgÀªÀgÀÄ "¨ÀsAiÀÄå DgÀºÁ ºÀÆA" CAvÀ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ "ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæ WÁmïPÉÆ
DªÉÇ" JAzÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀÄ "¨ÀsAiÀiÁå D gÀºÁ ºÀÆA JPï
«Ä¤mï" CAvÀ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ "d°Ý DªÉÇà d°Ý DªÉÇÃ" CAvÀ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
24
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀjUÉ "ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï DeÁzï ¥ÁPïð ªÉÄ DªÉÇ" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ.
Thereafter the police downloaded the said conversation to a
C.D., and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and obtained his
signature as per Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P2(c). He has also identified
the mobile phone before the Court as MO1 and C.D., as MO2.
Further he has deposed that they have also obtained his
signature on the slips as per Ex.P2(b) and Ex.P2(c) and MO1(a)
and MO2(a) and paper cover is MO3 and his signature is
MO3(a). Further he has deposed that the said mahazar was
conducted in respect of kidnapping of son of Aman Ram on 13-
08-2014.
25. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence
of this witness, except denial suggestion, nothing has been
elicited favourable to the defense taken by them. Further he
was elicited that:"¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀªÁtô ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
PÉýzÉÝãÉ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ËªÀÄå ªÉÄÃqÀA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ ¨ÀsªÀgï¯Á¯ï
EzÀÝgÀÄ. mÉ°¥sÉÆÃ£ï ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ¨Áj PÉý¹zÁÝgÉ. mÉ°¥sÉÆÃ£ï ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ
PÉý¹zÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è PÀbÉÃj PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀݪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 2.30
Spl.C.C.554/2014
25
UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 4.30 UÀAmɪÀgÉUÉ EzÉÝ. ªÀĺÀdgïUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸À»
ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ". Having elicited the said fact, but the accused persons
have not denied the said elicitation by denial suggestion. At
this stage, this Court opines the prosecution proved the seizer
of mobile produced by the complainant beyond all reasonable
doubt.
26. By going through the evidence of Pw.6-Bhavar Lal-
another Panch witness, he has deposed that on 15-08-2014 at
about 01.30 p.m., the police called him to the station, along
with Pw.5 he went to the police station and in the police station
Aman Ram was also present, said Aman Ram produced black
colour Samsung mobile in respect of kidnap of his son. Further
he has deposed that: "CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀ PÀ¥ÀÅà§tÚzÀ ¸ÁåªÀiï¸ÀAUï ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï£À°è
gÉPÁqïð DVzÀÝ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉý¹zÁÝgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉ »A¢ ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°èvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÆzÀ°UÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ "ªÀÄAwæªÀiÁ¯ï D£Á"
JAzÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. CªÀÄÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀÄ "JPï«Ä¤mï zÉÆëĤmï D gÀºÁ
ºÀÆA" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ "ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï D£Á" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. CzÀPÉÌ
CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀÄ "JPï zÉÆëĤmï D gÀºÁ ºÀÆA" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
26
"ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï DeÁzï ¥ÁPïð D£Á" JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁÝgÉ. CªÀiÁ£ïgÁA gÀªÀgÀÄ "D gÀºÁ ºÀÆA" CAvÀ
ºÉýzÁÝgÉ". Through this witness the prosecution marked MO1(b)
and MO2(d) and MO2(e). Further he has deposed that he had
given statement to that effect.
27. In the cross-examination the accused No.1 and 2
tested the veracity of evidence of this witness by eliciting some
commission and omission and also elicited that: "JA.M.1 ªÉƨÉʯï
¥sÀÉÆãï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉý¹zÁÝgÉ.
D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀÄ£ïgÁªÀiï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ d£À EzÀÝgÀÄ. JA.M.1 ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆãï£À£ÀÄß
¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß PÉÊ£À°è PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è, CzÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀ PÉÊ£À°èvÀÄÛ". Further he was
elicited that: "JA.M.2 ¹rAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉý¹zÁÝgÉ". Having
elicited the said fact and situation, the accused No.1 and 2 not
disputed the same, as such it is crystal clear that the accused
No.1 and 2 not disputed the process of conducting mahazar as
per Ex.P3 and Ex.P2. Through the evidence of Pw.6 also the
prosecution establishes the process of conducting of seizure of
Samsung mobile and C.D., and its conversation beyond all
Spl.C.C.554/2014
27
reasonable doubt.
28. Now left with the seizure of two wheeler which was
used by the accused No.1 and 2 for commission of crime as per
the case of prosecution. The prosecution produces the evidence
of Pw.7-Lakshman Kumar. He has deposed that on 10-09-2014
he was standing near Malleshwaram Railway Station West Gate,
at about 02.30 p.m., the police called him at that place and
given information that the accused persons kidnapped the
victim boy using TVS motor cycle, due to exhaust of petrol, they
have parked the same near the said railway station and also
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4, but the motor cycle was not
at that spot. The police came along with the accused persons
who were present before the Court, at that time the accused
persons showed the said spot, accordingly the police conducted
mahazar as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(a).
29. The accused persons tested his veracity by eliciting
that: "£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ EgÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA gÉʯÉéà ªÉ¸ïÖUÉÃmï §½
Spl.C.C.554/2014
28
£ÉÆÃrzÉÝãÉ". Having elicited the said fact, but they have not denied
the same by denial suggestion, as such it is very clear that at
the time of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P4, the accused
persons accompanied with the police showed the parking place.
Further the accused persons denied the process of conducting
mahazar by denial suggestion, for that he has denied the same
and his definite answer is that after conducting process of
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P4, the police read over its contents
before him and thereafter he has signed the said document.
30. By going through the evidence of Pw.8-Himath
Singh, he has deposed that on 10-09-2014 he was near
Malleshwaram, at that time Pw.7 called him over phone to come
near Malleshwaram Railway Station West Gate, when he went
there, at that place the police and Pw.7 were standing.
Thereafter he came to know that while kidnapping the victim
boy, the accused No.1 and 2 used TVS motor cycle, due to
exhaust of petrol, they have parked the said vehicle there itself
and the said spot shown by the accused persons. The police
Spl.C.C.554/2014
29
conducted mahazar as per Ex.P4 and his signature is Ex.P4(b).
31. In the cross-examination of learned Public
Prosecutor he was elicited about the process of conducting
mahazar as per Ex.P4, but he has shown his ignorance about
the police accompanied with the accused persons at that place
and his evidence remains unassailed. The accused persons not
cross-examined this witness by denial of process of conducting
mahazar as per Ex.p4, he has also shown his ignorance about
the availability of accused persons at that place, but at the
same time Pw.7-Lakshman Kumar clearly corroborated the
process of conducting mahazar as per Ex.P4, as such this
Court feels to opine that the prosecution proved the process of
conducting mahazar as per Ex.P4 beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. Now left with the evidence of owner of TVS Motor
cycle. By going through the evidence of Pw.14-Dinesh, he has
deposed that the accused No.2 is his sister's son and his house
is situated near Harishchandra Ghat. About two years back at
the time of Rakhi Festival, the accused No.2 had taken his TVS
Spl.C.C.554/2014
30
Moped bearing No.KA-01-EP-4953 stating that he is going to
return the same in 3-4 days, but he has not return the same.
He thought that the accused No.2 had taken said vehicle to
some where and he didn't ask him to return the said motor
cycle. But after some times he received phone call from the
police station about using of said TVS moped for kidnapping of
the victim boy by Dharmendra and Jitendra, immediately he
went to the police station and handed over the Xerox copy of
R.C. book as per Ex.P12 and taken the said vehicle to his
custody, the police also recorded his statement and this witness
also identified the accused No.1 and 2 through V.C. and his
evidence remains unassailed. At this stage this Court opines
the prosecution proved offences against the accused No.1 and 2
beyond all reasonable doubt.
33. Now left with the material evidence in respect of
spot and seizure mahazar conducted after the incident taken
place at Harishchandra Ghat near Navarang Main road. The
prosecution produces the evidence of another witness who is
Spl.C.C.554/2014
31
examined as Pw.8-Joseph, he has deposed that on 13-08-2014
at about 10.00 p.m., the Police Inspector of Srirampura Police
station called him and also one Suresh Babu and another Babu
near Harishchandra Ghat burial ground, Navarang Main road,
wherein Srirampura Police and Cotton Pete Police Inspectors
taken them inside the burial ground. He came to know the fact
that one child was kidnapped and the kidnappers demanded
Rs.30 Lakhs from the father of the child, on hearing the crying
sound of a child the police immediately went inside the burial
ground and saw two persons holding a child, when the police
proceeded to rescue the said child, out of those two persons one
person assaulted to the police through knife in order to defend
himself and in order to rescue the child the police fired on the
legs of both the persons and rescued the child and those
injured persons were taken to K.C.General Hospital. The said
fact informed to him by the police, after that they have
conducted mahazar from 10.00 p.m., to 24.00 hours in the mid
night and seized blood stained mud, sample mud, two slippers,
two mobiles, one knife and also three bullets in front of him and
Spl.C.C.554/2014
32
another mahazar witness as per Ex.P5. Further he has also
deposed that after sealing of those articles the police taken the
photo as per Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 and made it subject to P.F.No.
182/2014. Here the evidence of this witness also remains
unassailed, having opportunity taken by the accused persons,
they have not cross-examined this witness. At this stage this
Court opines with regard to seizing of articles at Harishchandra
Ghat burial ground as per Ex.P5, the prosecution proved its
case beyond all reasonable doubt through the evidence of this
witness.
34. By going through the evidence of Pw.10-V.Babu,
another Panch witness, he has also deposed in support of the
evidence given by Pw.8/Pw.9-Joseph and also deposed about
seizing of articles as per Ex.P5 in the night from 10.00 p.m., to
12.00a.m., (24 hours in the mid night). Further he has deposed
in respect of seizing of said articles and sealing the same as per
rule and taken photos as per Ex.P6 to Ex.P11. Here the
evidence of this witness also remains unassailed and the
Spl.C.C.554/2014
33
prosecution proved the process of conducting mahazar as per
Ex.P5 beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. Now left with the evidence of Pw.11-Muniraju-Head
Constable, who was one of the injured at the time of rescue of
child from the kidnappers, he has deposed that on 13-08-2014
six years old child by name Mohith was kidnapped and the case
was registered to that effect. The station Police Inspector
formed teams to rescue the child and to caught hold the
kidnappers, he is one of the team member and all of them went
near Harishchandra Ghat, situated within the limits of
Srirampura Police station at about 08.00 p.m., and heard the
crying of a child, immediately they went inside the
Harishchandra Ghat burial ground. At that time one of the
members of the team asked those two persons to hand over the
said child to them and to surrender, but they threatened them
with dire consequences and also told that if they proceed
further, they are going to kill the child, at that time he deposed
that: "£ÀªÀÄä vÀAqÀzÀ°èzÀÝ ¥ÉÃzÉ C¥Àìgï C° ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃV CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »rAiÀÄĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV
Spl.C.C.554/2014
34
ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ°è M§â£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß°èzÀÝ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ JqÀPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀ. ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÅgÀ ¦LgÀªÀgÀÄ
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ±ÀgÀuÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý UÁ½AiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ. ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÅgÀ ¦L CªÀgÀ
vÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁªÀiÁQë¥Á¼Àå ¦L ¨Á¼ÉÃUËqÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ D vÀAqÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ. UÁ½AiÀÄ°è UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÁUÀ
D ªÀåQÛ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ ºÁQzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §A¢zÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÉÆۧ⠪ÀåQÛ
D ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß JqÀvÉÆýUÉ EjzÀ. £ÁªÀÅ »rAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä
¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦L ¸ÀĤ¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï CªÀgÀ §½ EzÀÝ ¸À«Ãð¸ï
¦¸ÀÆÛ¯ï¤AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÁ°UÉ UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ, C°èAiÉÄà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀĹzÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ £ÁªÀÅ
CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛªÀjzÀÄ »rzÀgÀÄ". Further he has deposed that: "UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArzÀÝ
£À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀìgïC° ¥ÉÃzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß Pɹ d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ aQvÀÉìUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. D ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÀÛÉãÉ. ºÀtPÁÌV ªÀiUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß C¥ÀºÀgÀt
ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ D ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À vÀAzɬÄAzÀ gÀÆ. 30 ®PÀëUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À vÀAzÉ oÁuÉUÉ
§AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ." and also identified the knife used for assaulting
him before the Court. Here having appeared through their
advocate by the accused persons they didn't made efforts to
cross-examine this witness by taking their own defense, on the
other hand the evidence of this witness remains unassailed.
Here this witness is one of the injured at the time of rescue of
victim boy from the kidnappers. When his evidence remains
Spl.C.C.554/2014
35
unassailed, it is not safe to disbelieve the offence against the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
36. By going through the evidence of Pw.13-Apsar Ali-
Police Constable-10524, another injured in the incident, he has
deposed that: "ದನನನಕಕ13.08.2014gÀAzÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 231/2014 gÀ°è ªÉÆûvï JA§
¨Á®PÀ C¥ÀgÀºÀtªÁVzÀÄÝ D §UÉÎ r¹¦ ¯Á§ÄgÁªÀiïgÀªÀgÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ vÀAqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀZÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è
£ÀªÀÄä oÁuÁ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸ÀĤ¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ, ¦J¸ïL UÀeÉÃAzÀæ, ¦¹ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ, ¥ÀæPÁ±ï,
±À²PÀĪÀiÁgï MAzÀÄ vÀAqÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ vÀAqÀzÀ°è PÁªÀiÁQÛ¥Á¼Àå ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï,
¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÅgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt, G¥Áàgï¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÇð¸ïoÁuÁ ¦J¸ïL
¨Á®gÁeïgÀªÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ vÀAqÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, DgÀÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁtô ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ gÀÆ.30 ®PÀëUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ
EnÖzÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖAvÉ EAlgï ¸ÉµÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹rDgï DzÀsj¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAwæªÀiÁ¯ï,
zÉêÀAiÀÄå¥ÁPïð, ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï ¸ÀܼÀUÀ½UÉ §gÀ®Ä w½¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀħæºÀätå¥ÀÅgÀ, ªÀįÉèñÀégÀA,
±ÉõÁ¢æ¥ÀÅgÀA, ²æÃgÁA¥ÀÅgÀ ªÉÄmÉÆægÉʯÉéà ¸ÀÉÖñÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï PÀqÉ gÁwæ 8.00 UÀAmÉUÉ UÀ¸ÀÄÛ
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ C¼ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ±À§ÝPÉýzÀÄÝ M¼ÀUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À §mÉÖ UÀÄgÀÄw¹
DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß »rAiÀÄĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ®ÄèvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ
ºÉzÀj¹zÁUÀ, ¦LgÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ±ÀgÀuÁUÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹ ªÀÄÄAzÉ »rAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ M§â D¸Á«Ä £À£Àß
§®UÉÊ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀUÉÊUÉ w«zÁUÀ, ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄtgÀªÀgÀÄ UÁ½AiÀÄ°è JgÀqÀÄ gËAqï UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀÄÝ
DgÉÆæ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ©¸ÁQzÀ. ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§â DgÉÆæ ¸ÀzÀj ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÉÃzÉ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀjUÉ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
36
§®UÉÊUÉ w«zÀ. DUÀ ¦L ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀĪÀÄÁgï, ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄuïgÀªÀgÀÄ DvÀägÀPÀëuÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢ gÀPÀëuÉUÁV
DgÉÆæAiÀÄ PÁ°UÉ UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀÄÝ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¼Á¸À PÉýzÁUÀ zÀsªÀiÁðgÁA, 23 ªÀµÀð JAzÀÄ
E£ÉÆߧâ fÃvÉÃAzÀæ, 20 ªÀµÀð, gÁd¸ÁÜ£À HgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DgÉÆævÀjUÀÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ
aQvÉì ¤Ãr DA§Äå¯É£ïì£À°è Pɹd£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÀÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV aQvÉìPÉÆr¹zÀgÀÄ" and his
evidence remains unassailed. When there is strong case
established by the prosecution against the accused No.1 and 2
with regard to kidnap of the victim boy, it is their burden to
cross-examine this witness by taking their defense. But inspite
of giving sufficient opportunities to them, they have not cross-
examined this witness and his evidence remains unassailed. At
this stage, this Court feels to observe that through the evidence
of this witness, the prosecution proved the offences against the
accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
37. By going through the evidence of Pw.15-Balegowda-
C.P.I., he has deposed that on 13-08-2014 he was one of the
team members formed by the DCP-West in respect of tracing of
the victim boy and kidnappers. In his team himself, Police
Inspector-Satyanarayanan, P.S.I-Balaraju were there and
Spl.C.C.554/2014
37
another team consisted of Police Inspector-Sunil Kumar,
P.S.I.Gajendra and their staffs. Both the kidnappers demanded
over phone from the father of the victim boy to pay Rs.30 Lakhs,
the said mobile number was trapped by the Police Inspector-
Sunil Kumar and also received information about its location
and the place of phone call from where the accused persons
demanded the father of the victim boy to bring amount to
Mantri Mall, Devaiah Park and Harishchandra Ghat.
Accordingly both the teams left Cotton Pete Police station at
about 06.30 p.m., in a private vehicle.
38. Further he has deposed that they searched for
accused persons at Malleshwaram, Subramanya Nagar and
lastly at about 08.00p.m., came near Harishchandra Ghat,
within the limits of Srirampura Police Station and when they
were on gastu by the side of Harishchandra Ghat, they heard
the crying of a child, they went to the place from where they
were hearing the crying sound and saw a child who was wearing
school uniform. Immediately they entered into the burial
Spl.C.C.554/2014
38
ground and found two persons holding the said child,
immediately they directed those persons to surrender to the
police and to hand over the said child to them. When the police
personnel proceeded near those persons, at that time they
threatened the police personnel stating that if they proceed
near to them, they are going to kill the child.
39. Further he has deposed that: "DUÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB DgÉÆævÀjUÉ
JZÀÑjPÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É zÁ½ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄ£ÀÄßUÀÄÎwÛzÁÝUÀ JZÀÑjPÉUÁV ¦L
¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt gÀªÀgÀÄ UÁ½AiÀÄ°è UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß
PɼÀUÉ ©¸ÁrzÀ. £ÁªÀÅ »rAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæ CzÉà ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ZÁ.¸Á.14
ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀjUÉ §®UÉÊUÉ EjzÀ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB JZÀÑjPÉ ¤Ãr vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀîzÀAvÉ ±ÀgÀuÁV JAzÀÄ
w½¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ DUÀ E§âgÀÆ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
±ÀgÀuÁUÀzÉà £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä DvÀä gÀPÀëuÉUÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À gÀPÀëuÉ
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JA§ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgïgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸À«ðÃ¸ï ¦¸ÀÆÛ¯ï¤AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀqÉUÉ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄAqÀÄ
ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ" Further he has deposed that: "DUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ QgÀÄaPÉÆAqÀÄ PɼÀUÉ
©zÀÝgÀÄ, DUÀ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV 1£Éà DgÉƦAiÀÄ §®PÁ°UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ JqÀPÁ°UÉ UÀÄAqÀÄ
vÀUÀÄ° gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ zÀsªÀiÁðgÁA ªÀÄvÀÄÛ fvÉAzÀæ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. vÀPÀët gÀPÀÛ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
39
¸ÁæªÀ DUÀzÀAvÉ D UÁAiÀÄUÀ½UÉ §mÉÖPÀnÖ ¤ÃgÀÄ PÀÄr¹ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ DA§Äå¯É£ïì vÀj¹ E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÁAiÀĪÁVzÀÝ C¥Àìgï C° ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢ ¸À»vÀ
Pɹd£ÀgÀ¯ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÄÁmÉÖ. ¦L ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgïgÀªÀgÀÄ C¥ÀºÀgÀtPÉÆ̼ÀUÁVzÀÝ ¨Á®PÀ£À£ÀÄß gÀPÀëuÉ
ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ, ¦J¸ïL UÀeÉAzÀægÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀܼÀ G¸ÀÄÛªÁjUÁV £ÉëĹzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ F ¸ÀA§AzÀs gÁwæ 9.30
UÀAmÉUÉ ²æÃgÁA¥ÀÅgÀ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÉÝ. £ÀªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr
PÉÆ¯É ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ".
40. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence
of this witness by eliciting some commission and omission and
also denied the alleged incident by denial suggestion. At the
same time they have admitted the incident by denial suggestion
to this witness without denying that: "£ÁªÀÅ ¸Àä±Á£ÀzÀ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ
DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ ±ÀgÀuÁV JA§ÄzÁV PÀÆVºÉýzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä
¥Áè£ï£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸Àä±Á£ÀzÀ M¼ÀUÀ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛªÀgÉzÀÄ »rAiÀħºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ
¸ÁQë £ÀªÀÄä ¥Áè£ï£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £ÁªÀÅ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛªÀjzÀÄ »rAiÀħºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀPÉÌ
§AzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉƯɪÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ DUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ dªÁ¨ÁÝj EzÀÝ
PÁgÀt £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÉÝêÉAzÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ºÉýzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ." When the
accused No.1 and 2 themselves admitted about kidnapping of
Spl.C.C.554/2014
40
the victim boy and taking him to Harishchandra Ghat, made
attempt to escape from that place and threatened the police
with dire consequences, it is not safe to disbelieve the case of
prosecution against the accused No.1 and 2.
41. Further the accused No.1 and 2 elicited that: "£ÁªÀÅ
DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÉÝêÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀgÀÄ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß
ªÀiÁqÀ°®è, CmÁåPï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄUÀÄ DgÉÆæ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä £ÀqÀÄ«£À
CAvÀgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°è ¤AwvÀÄÛ. E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ M§â £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ
ªÉÄÃ¯É CmÁåPï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ G½zÀ £ÁªÀÅ K¼ÀÄ d£À ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ D ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¸À§ºÀÄ¢vÀÄÛ
JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë £ÁªÀÅ CzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ M§â DgÉÆæ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ
C¥ÀìgÁ° JA§ ¥ÉÇÃ°Ã¸ï ¥ÉÃzÉUÉ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
DgÉÆæ D jÃw ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ gÀQë¸ÀĪÀ
¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzɪÀÅ. C¥ÀìgÁ°UÉ JgÀqÀÄ ¨Áj ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ DgÉÆæ ºÉÆqÉzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ
ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¥ÀÅ£ÀB DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ JZÀÑjPÉ PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀÄ
±ÀgÀuÁUÀ°®è D PÁgÀt ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄtgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸À«Ãð¸ïÀ ¦¸ÀÆÛ°¤AzÀ ºÀĹUÀÄAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ
JZÀÑj¹zÁUÀ D DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ZÁPÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ ºÁQzÀ, D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ
CªÀjAzÀ ©r¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§â DgÉÆæ CzÉà ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB JZÀÑjPÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÀÈvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß
Spl.C.C.554/2014
41
¤°è¸ÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¦L ¸ÀvÀå£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦L ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀÄ ಮನgïgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä¸À«ðÃ¸ï ¦¸ÀÆÛ¯ï¤AzÀ
DgÉÆæUÀ¼À PÀÀqÉUÉ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄAqÀÄ ºÁj¹zÀgÀÄ. M§â DgÉÆæ ZÁPÀÄ«¤AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ
ಮತರರತ§â DgÉÆæ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À §½ EzÀÄÝ CªÀj§âgÀÆ EzÀÝAvÀºÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ £ÁªÀÅ EzÀÝAvÀºÀ ¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ JµÀÄÖ
CAvÀgÀ«vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀVÃUÀ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÁgÀt D PÁzÁlzÀ°è CAvÀgÀzÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ಗ ªÀĤ¹gÀĪÀÅ
¢®è." but they have not denied the said fact by way of denial
suggestion, as such this Court feels to observe that through the
cross-examination of this witness also by way of eliciting the
above said evidence without its denial, the accused No.1 and 2
admitted the offence as per the case of prosecution.
42. By going through the evidence of Pw.17-Shashi
Kumar-Police Constable-11624, one of the member of team, he
has also corroborates the case of prosecution in his chief
examination. The accused persons cross-examined this witness
by eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited
that: "£Á£ÀÄ D ¢£À nêÀiï eÉÆvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á¤zÀÝAvÀºÀ nêÀiï£À°è ¦L ¸ÀĤ¯ï
PÀĪÀiÁgï, ¦J¸ïL UÀeÉÃAzÀæ, ¦¹ ªÀÄĤgÁdÄ, ¦¹ C¥Àìgï C°, ¥ÀæPÁ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ EzÉݪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ
oÁuɬÄAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¦LgÀªÀgÀ fæ£À°è ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä nêÀiï£À ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ZÁ®PÀ ¦¹
Spl.C.C.554/2014
42
ªÀÄĤgÁdÄgÀªÀgÁVzÀÝgÀÄ". Further he was elicited that: "D ¢£À C¥ÀºÀgÀtPÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀvÉÛUÉ
JgÀqÀÄ nêÀiï ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". Further he was also elicited
that: "£ÁªÀÅ ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï §½ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ gÁwæ 8.00 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. £ÁªÀÅ ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï
PÁA¥ËAqï¤AzÀ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ PÁA¥ËAqï£À PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è E§âgÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀÄ
EzÀÝzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzɪÀÅ, DUÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ D ªÀÄUÀÄ C°èzÀÝ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. D ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ
¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 100 «ÄÃlgï CAvÀgÀzÀ°è £ÉÆÃrzɪÀÅ. ºÀj±ÀÑAzÀæWÁmï ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ°èzÉ JAzÀgÀÉ
¸Àj". Again he was elicited that: "D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ ©½
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤Ã° §tÚzÀ UÉgÉAiÀÄļÀî ±Àmïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤Ã° ZÀrØ zÀsj¹vÀÄÛ. D ªÀÄUÀÄ ¸ÁzsÁgÀt JgÀqÀƪÀgÉ-
ªÀÄÆgÀÄ Cr JvÀÛgÀ«vÀÄÛ. D ªÀÄUÀÄ ¸ÀªÀĪÀ¸ÀÛç zÀsj¹vÀÄÛ JA§ ªÀiÁ»w ©lÖgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀ°®è JA§
¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁ»w EgÀ°®è DzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆà EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ". Again
he was elicited that: "£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
£ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À §½ ªÀÄUÀÄ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ
J¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥sÉÊjAUïVAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä D
ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ gÀQë¹zÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À
PÀqÉ ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JA§ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄïÉ
ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AzÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E§âgÀÄ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt AiÀiÁªÁåªÀ C¢üPÁj AiÀiÁªÁåªÀ DgÉÆæUÉ ¥sÉÊjAUï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÀÄ
Spl.C.C.554/2014
43
JA§ÄzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉ ºÉüÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. E¢µÀÄÖ WÀl£É £ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 30 jAzÀ 40 ¤«ÄµÀ
»r¬ÄvÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÁågÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ §gÀ°®è ". Having elicited the above
said admission at his cross-examination by the accused No.1
and 2, they have not taken any defense. At this stage, this
Court opines the accused No.1 and 2 have themselves admitted
about the offence as per the case of prosecution and as such
the prosecution proved the offence against the accused No.1
and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
43. By going through the evidence of Pw.21-K.P. Sathya
Narayana- Police Inspector, he has deposed that on 13-08-2014
at about 04.30 to 05.00 p.m., two teams were formed as per the
instructions of DCP-West to trace the child and the kidnappers.
He also accompanied with one of the team, his team consists of
himself, Cw.21 and Cw.5 and in another team Cw.27, Cw.22
and other police personnels accompanied. In that case the
kidnappers after kidnapping the victim boy have demanded
Rs.30 Lakhs from the father of victim boy i.e., Aman Ram. This
witness also corroborates the case of prosecution in his chief
Spl.C.C.554/2014
44
examination and his evidence remains unassailed. Even when
sufficient opportunity given to the accused No.1 and 2, they
have not cross-examined this witness. At this stage this Court
opines through the evidence of this witness also the prosecution
proved the offence against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
44. By going through the evidence of Pw.16-N.Sowmya,
she has deposed that on 13-08-2014 she was the SHO of the
Cotton Pete Police station, at about 04.30 p.m., the complainant
came and lodged complaint as per Ex.P1, she has verified the
same and registered the case in Crime No.231/2014 for the
offences punishable under section 363, 364-A read with section
34 of IPC. She has entered Shara and signed the same as per
Ex.P1(b). Thereafter she has prepared FIR as per Ex.P14 and
her signature is Ex.P14(a). Thereafter she went to the incident
spot, conducted mahazar as per Ex.P3 at about 05.30 p.m., to
06.30 p.m., and her signature is Ex.P3(b). Here the Panch
witness-Pw.4 corroborates the process of conducting mahazar
Spl.C.C.554/2014
45
as per Ex.P3.
45. Further Pw.16 deposed that on the same day she
has received instructions from DCP-West for search of the
victim boy and the kidnappers and two teams were formed and
in one team Police Inspector-Bale Gowda, and P.S.I. Balaraju
and other police personnels accompanied Police Inspector-
Sathyanarayan and another team consisted of Cw.27, Cw.22,
Cw.14 to Cw.17. Further she has deposed that the complainant
orally and also in writing stated that the kidnappers called him
over phone and demanded Rs.30 Lakhs for release of his son, as
such in order to trace the location of the accused persons, she
has obtained permission in writing from DCP West to trace the
call locations of complainant and the kidnappers who are
accused No.1 and 2 herein. Thereafter two teams of police
personnels traced the accused persons and the victim boy was
produced before her. She has taken custody of victim boy and
sent him for medical examination to Vani Vilas Hospital and
thereafter recorded the statement of victim boy-Pw.2 in front of
Spl.C.C.554/2014
46
his father as per Ex.P15 and handed over the victim boy to his
father. Here the complainant-Pw.1, the victim boy-Pw.2, eye-
witness-Pw.3 by giving their evidences have supported the case
of prosecution and they have also identified the accused No.1
and 2 before the Court stating that they have kidnapped the
victim boy as per the case of the prosecution.
46. Pw.16 further deposed that on 14-08-2017 she has
submitted requisition to 3rd A.C.M.M., as per Ex.P16 and also
recorded the statement of Cw.12. She has also produced IMEI
numbers, call details, details of tower locations in respect of
both the mobiles of the complainant and the accused persons
wherein on 13-08-2017 the said call details disclose about
conversation between the complainant and the accused
persons. Further she had deposed that on 15-08-2014 she has
called the complainant and Panch witnesses and complainant
produced Samsung Dio and the same was seized through
seizure mahazar as per Ex.P2 and MO1 and MO2 and recorded
the statement of Panch witnesses. Here the complainant and
Spl.C.C.554/2014
47
Panch witnesses by giving their evidence have corroborated the
evidence of this witness. Further Pw.16 deposed that she has
recorded the statement of Cw.25 to Cw.27, Cw.21 and Cw.14 to
Cw.17 on 16-08-2014 and handed over the record to Cw.27 for
further investigation.
47. The accused persons cross-examined this witness by
eliciting some commission and omission, nothing has been
elicited favourable to the defense taken by them. Even in the
written arguments also nothing has been stated by the learned
advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 in respect of their defense.
At this stage, this Court opines the prosecution establishes the
offence as per its case against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond
all reasonable doubt.
48. By going through the evidence of Pw.12-B.S.
Govindaraju-Retired A.S.I., and Pw.18-Shiva Kumar-Police
Constable-12645, they have deposed that on 08-09-2014, they
were entrusted to escort the accused No.1 and 2 who were
admitted to K.C. General Hospital for treatment in respect of
Spl.C.C.554/2014
48
receiving bullet injuries on their legs and taking treatment as
inpatients. Accordingly they have escorted the accused No.1
and 2 and on 08-09-2014 at about 08.30a.m., to 12.30p.m. The
accused No.1 and 2 discharged from the hospital and they
produced them before the SHO and Pw.12 given report. The
accused persons cross-examined these two witnesses, except
denial suggestion, nothing has been elicited favourable to the
defense taken by them. Here it is not in dispute that at the time
of participation of rescuing of child from the kidnappers who are
the accused No.1 and 2 herein for self defense the Cw.27 and
Cw.26 fired on the legs of the accused No.1 and 2 and they have
received bullet injuries and were admitted to K.C.General
Hospital for treatment. When such being the case, question of
disbelieving the evidence of these two witness doesn't arises. At
this stage this Court opines the prosecution proved the offence
against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
49. By going through the evidence of Pw.20-Narayani-
P.S.I., he has deposed that on 01-02-2014 as per the
Spl.C.C.554/2014
49
instructions of Cw.27 he has arrested the accused No.1 and 2
who were produced before him after discharge from K.C.General
Hospital, perused the record and conducted. Earlier to that he
went to the hospital, ascertained about health condition of the
accused No.1 and 2 from in charge doctor-Dr. Jagadish, he told
to discharge the accused persons after consultation of
Orthopedist in respect of fracture of leg bones of the accused
No.1 and 2. As such he has produced the accused No.1 and 2
before Orthopedist-Dr. Menan and came to know at the injured
place of leg bones of the accused No.1 and 2 the pus was
formed, as such blood test was conducted and on that day the
accused No.1 and 2 are not discharged from the hospital. He
has entrusted the police personnel for escort of the accused
No.1 and 2 in the hospital.
50. Further he has deposed that on 08-09-2014 at about
12.30 p.m., Pw.12 and Pw.18 produced the accused No.1 and 2
before him along with report. He has arrested them as per rule
and produced them before Court along with remand application
Spl.C.C.554/2014
50
and also obtained them for police custody up to 11-09-2014.
The accused No.1 given his voluntary statement as per Ex.P19
stating that he and the accused No.2 having common intention
to gain money, kidnapped the victim boy and taken him in TVS
two wheeler moped and admitted that he is ready to show the
place of parking of TVS two wheeler and going to produce the
said vehicle and also he is ready to produce the Samsung
mobile, Carbon mobile and button knife which were thrown at
the place of shooting. The accused No.2 stated similar facts in
his voluntary statement as per Ex.P2.
51. Further Pw.20 deposed that on 09-09-2014 the
accused No.1 and 2 showed the shop from where they have
purchased DOCOMO SIM, further he has recorded the
statement of said shop owner on 10-09-2014 and on the same
day the accused persons showed the place where the TVS
vehicle was parked, at that place this witness conducted
mahazar as per Ex.P4, thereafter he has brought the accused
persons to the station and after medical check up in the Victoria
Spl.C.C.554/2014
51
Hospital, kept them in lock up. He has also summoned the
owner of TVS moped-Dinesh Kumar, recorded his statement
and also sent him to lodge complaint of non-tracking of his
vehicle and to corroborate the said evidence produced the FIR
and complaint as per Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 and produced the
accused persons before Court along with remand application on
11-09-2014. Ex.P23 is the report submitted by A.S.I., Rudrappa
and thereafter he has handed over the record to Cw.27 for
further investigation.
52. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence
of this witness by denial suggestion of each and every word of
his chief examination, for that he has denied the same as false.
Through the evidence of Pw.20, the accused persons fails to
establish their defense. Even while cross-examining the
prosecution witnesses the accused persons not taken any
specific defense, except denial suggestion, even they have not
denied C.D.R. produced by the prosecution in respect of
conversation held between them and the complainant in respect
Spl.C.C.554/2014
52
of kidnap of the victim boy and demand of Rs.30 Lakhs from the
complainant. When such being the case, it is not safe to
disbelieve the offence against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
53. Now left with evidence of Pw.19. By going through
the evidence of Pw.19-Sunil Kumar-Police Inspector, he has
deposed that he has received record from Pw.20 and conducted
further investigation. On 22-12-2014 he has received certified
extract of certificate of registration of TVS Excel Super Moped
on 13-08-2014. Further he has deposed that he is one of the
team member formed by the DCP to trace the accused persons
and the victim boy. He has also given letter as per Ex.P7 for
C.D.R., and I.M.E.I., number details of the mobile of the
accused persons. On the very same day at about 08.00 p.m.,
the child was rescued in the Harishchandra Ghat, situated
within the limits of Srirampura Police Station and also
corroborates the evidence of Pw.17, Pw.21 and other police
personnel evidence. He has also deposed that he and the Police
Spl.C.C.554/2014
53
Inspector-Sathyanarayan fired on the legs of the accused No.1
and 2, as they attempted to stab the police personnels through
button knife who are proceeded for rescuing of child. He has
also identified the accused No.1 and 2 before the Court in
respect of firing of the accused No.1 and 2. Police Inspector-
Bale Gowda lodged complaint at about 09.30 p.m., before
Srirampura Police station.
54. The accused persons tested the veracity of evidence
of this witness with regard to using of vehicle, place of incident,
identification of the victim boy and the accused No.1 and 2 by
eliciting some commission and omission and also elicited of
having light facility in the burial ground. Further it is the
suggestion of accused persons that: "ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÉ ªÀÄUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ
JA§ÄzÁV E§âgÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ M§âgÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß CmÁåPï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ.
D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ªÀÄUÀÄ DgÉÆæ fvÉÃAzÀæ£À §½ EvÀÄÛ. D ªÀÄUÀÄ CªÀj§âgÀ ªÀÄzÀsåzÀ°è EvÀÄÛ. D
¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ®Æè PÀÆqÀ D ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉAiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀÉÆAzÀgÉ DVgÀ°®è J§A ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë D ªÀÄUÀÄ
¥Áæt©üwìÄAzÀ £ÀgÀ¼ÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ JA§ÄzÁV ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ" . The above suggestion itself
reveals that the accused persons themselves admitted about
Spl.C.C.554/2014
54
attacking of police personnels at that time and along with them
the victim boy was also in their custody. Further it is the
admission of accused persons that: "D 15 Cr CAvÀgÀzÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è M¨ÉÆâ§â
ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ NqÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
55. Further he has admitted that: "D ªÀÄUÀÄ«£À ¥ÁætPÉÌ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉ
JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §AzÀPÀÆqÀ¯Éà DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß F PÀqÉ
PÉÆlÄÖ ©r ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀgÀuÁV JA§ÄzÁV ºÉýzÉÝêÉ. F WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÉÃ
ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV C¥ÀºÀgÀtªÁzÀ ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß gÀQë¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £ÁªÀÅ J¯Áè jÃwAiÀÄ
JZÀÑjPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÀÉ ¸Àj ". Further he has admitted that: "£ÁªÀÅ
¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀªÀgÉ«UÀÄ DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj ".
The above said elicitation through this witness it is very clear
the accused persons themselves admitted about kidnapping of
the victim boy and also the police rescued the victim boy and in
that respect the accused No.1 and 2 received bullet injuries on
their legs and also participation of police personnel in caught
hold of the accused No.1 and 2 herein as per the case of
prosecution. When such being the evidence available on record
Spl.C.C.554/2014
55
through this witness it is not safe to disbelieve the commission
of offence by the accused No.1 and 2 with common intention
and the prosecution establishes its case against the accused
No.1 and 2 through the evidence of this witness.
56. The oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the offence against
accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The defense
of the accused No.1 and 2 not established by them through the
cross-examination of Pw.1 to Pw.21 and by way of production of
their defense evidence. The facts and circumstances of the case
including the materials on record discussed above probablizes
the case of the prosecution rather than the defense of the
accused No.1 and 2.
57. In view of the above said oral and documentary, I
hold that the evidence Pw.1 to Pw.21 and documentary evidence
Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and material objects-MO1 to MO3 placed on
record in respect of offences is sufficient to prove that the
complainant-Cw.1-Amul Ram @ Aman Ram, residing at Cotton
Spl.C.C.554/2014
56
Pete Main Road, Subramanya Lane, Bangalore, within limits of
Cotton Pete Police Station-Bangalore, his children viz., Cw.11-
Mohit @ Vikas aged about 6 years and Cw.12-Tamanna aged
about 8 years, are studying at Versus International School of
Rajaji Nagar 6th Block, Bangalore, on 13-08-2014 at about
04.30p.m., they got down from the school bus in front of Adi
Lakshmi Provision Stores and are on the way towards the house
by walk, at that time the accused No.1 and 2 came in a motor-
bike behind them, called Cw.11-Vikas stating that they are
going to give him Chocolate, when Cw.11 went near them, the
accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped him in their motor bike,
thereafter, they called Cw.1-the father of Vikas-Amul Ram over
phone stating that they have kidnapped his son and also
demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs to them, otherwise
they are going to kill the victim boy, during the course of
investigation Cw.14 to Cw.17, Cw.21, Cw.22, Cw.25 to Cw.27,
traced the accused No.1 and 2 at Harishchandra burial ground,
within the limits of Srirampura Police station and when they
proceeded to caught hold the accused No.1 and 2, they
Spl.C.C.554/2014
57
assaulted Cw.14 and Cw.15 through their knife and made them
to suffer injuries and also made attempt to kill them, at that
time Cw.26 and Cw.27 used their Departmental pistols and
fired on the legs of the accused No.1 and 2 and both the
accused persons received injuries to their legs and thereby
committed offences punishable under Section 364-A read with
section 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, I
hold Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
58. Point No.2:- For the above said reasons and
discussions on Point No.1, I hold that the accused No.1 and 2
are entitled for an order of conviction. Hence, in the final
result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under section 364-A read with section 34 of I.P.C.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is Spl.C.C.554/2014 58 then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 12 th Day of November, 2019) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the arguments from the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor regarding sentence.
2. The learned advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 submits that the accused No.1 and 2 are poor persons, they came to Bangalore for work and having aged parents in their family, they have to look after them and since five years they are in judicial custody and requested to take lenient view in respect of imposing sentence on him. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the facts of the case, lenient view should not be taken regarding sentence.
Spl.C.C.554/2014 59
3. It is not in dispute that the accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped the victim boy stating that they are going to give him Chocolate and taken him in two wheeler and the victim boy was rescued by the police on the very same day at Harishchandra Ghat burial ground, within the limits of Srirampura Police station and at the time of rescuing of the victim boy the accused No.1 and 2 assaulted the police personnel through knife and also both the accused persons received bullet injuries to their legs at the time of firing by police. This fact is deposed by Pw.1 to Pw.21. When such being the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met by imposing the minimum sentence to accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable section under Section 364-A read with section 34 of I.P.C.
4. Further the punishment for the offence under Section 364-A of I.P.C., fixed with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Here the accused No.1 and 2 kidnapped the victim boy from his lawful guardianship by Spl.C.C.554/2014 60 influencing him that they are going to give Chocolate to him. The said fact proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 and the police rescued the victim boy from the hands of kidnappers and the kidnappers demanded to pay Rs.30 Lakhs from the complainant/the father of victim boy, otherwise they are going to kill the victim boy and the same is established by the prosecution through the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.21. Thus in my opinion, if the Court has to impose sentence of of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.25,000/- to each and in default of payment of fine, to under go Simple imprisonment for a period of one year in respect of offence under Section 364-A read with section 34 of I.P.C., no impediments will be caused to them. Hence, I proceed to pass the sentence as under:
ORDER The accused No.1 and 2 are sentenced to under go life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- by each for the offence under Section 364-A read with section 34 of I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine, they shall further under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.
Spl.C.C.554/2014 61 MO1 to MO3 are treated as worth properties, office is directed to put up this record, after appeal period is over, for further orders in respect of disposal of the said properties.
Issue conviction warrant against accused No.1 and 2 in accordance with law.
Furnish free copy of judgment and order of sentence to the accused No.1 and 2 forth with.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her. It is then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18 th Day of November, 2019) (SUSHEELA) L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Pw.1 Aman Ram Cw.1 03-08-2015 Pw.2 Victim boy Cw.11 23-12-2015 Pw.3 Thamanna Cw.12 11-02-2016 Spl.C.C.554/2014 62 Pw.4 Krishna Cw.2 14-03-2016 Pw.5 Wagha Ram Cw.4 24-06-2016 Pw.6 Bhavar Lal Cw.5 24-06-2016 Pw.7 Lakshman Kumar Cw.9 16-07-2016 Pw.8 Himath Singh Cw.10 24-06-2016 Pw.9 Joseph Cw.9 29-09-2016 Pw.10 V. Babu Cw.7 18-10-2016 Pw.11 Muniraju Cw.14 11-12-2016 Pw.12 B.S. Govindaraju Cw.19 15-12-2016 Pw.13 Apsar Ali Cw.15 15-12-2016 Pw.14 Dinesh Cw.13 29-12-2016 Pw.15 Bale Gowda Cw.25 07-04-2017 Pw.16 N. Sowmya Cw.24 04-09-2017 Pw.17 Shashi Kumar Cw.17 04-09-2017 Pw.18 Shiva Kumar Cw.18 15-09-2017 Pw.19 Sunil Kumar Cw.27 03-11-2017 Pw.20 Narayani Cw.23 04-12-2017 Pw.21 K.P. Satya Narayana Cw.26 18-12-2017 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P 1 Complaint Pw.1 03-08-2015 Ex.P 1a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03-08-2015 Ex.P 1b Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 2 Seizure mahazar Pw.1 03-08-2015 Spl.C.C.554/2014 63 Ex.P 2a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03-08-2015 Ex.P 2b Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 24-06-2016 Ex.P 2c Signature of Pw.4 Pw.4 24-06-2016 Ex.P 2d Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 24-06-2016 Ex.P 2e Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 24-06-2016 Ex.P 2f Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 3 Seizure mahazar Pw.3 14-03-2016 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.3 Pw.3 14-03-2016 Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 3 Seizure mahazar Pw.1 03-08-2015 Ex.P 3a Signature of Pw.1 Pw.1 03-08-2015 Ex.P 3b Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 4 Seizure mahazar Pw.7 24-06-2016 Ex.P 4a Signature of Pw.7 Pw.7 24-06-2016 Ex.P 4b Signature of Pw.8 Pw.8 24-06-2016 Ex.P 4c Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 4d Signature of A-1 Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 4e Signature of A-2 Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 5 Seizure mahazar Pw.9 29-09-2016 Ex.P 5a Signature of Pw.9 Pw.9 29-09-2016 Ex.P 6 to Photos Pw.10 03-11-2016 11 Ex.P 12 Xerox of R.C. Pw.14 29-12-2016 Ex.P 13 Complaint Pw.15 07-04-2017 Ex.P 14 FIR Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 14a Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 15 Statement of victim Pw.16 04-09-2017 Spl.C.C.554/2014 64 boy Ex.P 15a Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 16 Report Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 16a Signature of Pw.16 Pw.16 04-09-2017 Ex.P 17 Requisition to DCP Pw.19 03-11-2017 Ex.P 17a Signature of Pw.19 Pw.19 03-11-2017 Ex.P 18 to Annexure-A to C Pw.19 03-11-2017 20 Ex.P 18a to Signatures of Pw.19 03-11-2017 20a Pw.19 Ex.P 19 Voluntary Pw.20 04-12-2017 statement of A-1 Ex.P 19a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 03-11-2017 Ex.P 20 Voluntary Pw.20 04-12-2017 statement of A-2 Ex.P 20a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 21 FIR Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 22 Copy of complaint Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 23 FIR Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 23a Signature of Pw.20 Pw.20 04-12-2017 Ex.P 23a Signature of Cw.20 Pw.20 04-12-2017 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION MO1 Samsung Mobile Pw.5 24-06-2016 MO1(a) Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 24-06-2016 MO1(b) Signature of Pw.6 Pw.6 24-06-2016 Spl.C.C.554/2014 65 MO2 C.D. Pw.5 24-06-2016 MO3 Cover Pw.5 24-06-2016 MO3(a) Signature of Pw.5 Pw.5 24-06-2016 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED, DOCUMENTS MARKED & MATERIAL OBJECTS MAKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE NIL L ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE