Madras High Court
Prabhu [A vs State Rep. By on 30 April, 2015
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgement Reserved on : 14..07..2016 Judgement Pronounced on: 31..08..2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2015 1.Prabhu [A1] 2.Vijay [A2] ... Appellants -Versus- State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, J.J.Nagar Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.70 of 2011 dated 30.04.2015. For Appellants : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Vivekananthan for Appellants/ A1 and A2 For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, State Public Prosecutor Assisted M.Maharaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor JUDGEMENT
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The Appellants are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu. They stood charged for offences as detailed below:-
Charge Number Charge(s) framed against Penal provision under which charge framed 1 A1 and A2 Section 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC 2 A1 and A2 Section 363 r/w 34 of IPC 3 A1 and A2 Section 365 r/w 34 of IPC 4 A1 and A2 Section 364-A of IPC 5 A1 and A2 Section 386 r/w 34 of IPC 6 A1 Section 465 of IPC 7 A2 Section 114 r/w 465 of IPC 8 A1 and A2 Section 468 r/w 34 of IPC 9 A1 Section 471 r/w 465 10 A2 Section 109 r/w 471 and 465 of IPC The trial court, by judgement, dated 30.04.2015, convicted and sentenced them as detailed below:-
Rank of the Accused Penal provision under which conviction recorded Quantum of Sentence Imposed A1 and A2 Section 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months A1 and A2 Section 364-A of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The trial court, however, acquitted A1 of the charges under Sections 363 r/w 34, 365 r/w 34, 386 r/w 34, 465, 468 r/w 34 and 471 r/w 465 of IPC and A2 of the charges under Sections 363 r/w 34, 365 r/w 34, 386 r/w 34, 114 r/w 465, 468 r/w 34, 109 r/w 471 r/w 465 of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, A1 and A2 have come up with this criminal appeal.
2.0. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- P.W.4 is a resident of No.1/262, Z-Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600040. He is a business man having business concerns both in Chennai and outside. P.W.2, aged about 14 years, is his son. P.W.2 was studying IX-Std in DAV Senior Secondary School at Mogappair in Chennai. P.W.1, a driver by profession, was employed by P.W.4. P.W.4 was owning a Tavera Car bearing Regn. No.TN 02 AE 3278. P.W.2, from his his house, used to go to school everyday in the said car driven by P.W.1 and return in the evening in the same car.
2.1. On 01.11.2010, as usual, P.W.2 went to the school in the above said car driven by P.W.1. The school hour was over at 03.05 p.m. As usual, P.W.1 had gone to the school to pick up P.W.2. P.W.1 parked the car in front of the school. P.W.2 came out of the school, came near the car, got into the same and sat in the front seat of the car by the side of the driver's seat. P.W.1 received the school bag of P.W.2 and kept it on the back seat of the car. Then, P.W.1 opened the door and sat on the driver's seat. Even before he could start the car, two persons came near the car. [P.W.1 has later on identified those two persons as A1 and A2]. A1 opened the right side back door of the car and entered into the same. Simultaneously, A2 opened the left back side door of the car and got into the car and closed the doors. A1 was sitting just behind P.W.1 and A2 was sitting just behind P.W.2. A1 took out a knife and kept it just above the neck of P.W.1 and A2 took a knife and kept it just above the neck of P.W.2. Then, A1 directed P.W.1 to start the car and to drive the same. Both A1 and A2 threatened them to kill if they raised any alarm. As directed by them, out of fear, silently, P.W.1 started the car and drove the same in the direction as dictated by the accused. The car was proceeding on the Ambattur- Thirumangalam Road. When the car was reaching a road junction , A1 and A2 directed P.W.1 to turn the car towards the branch road. They again directed P.W.1 to stop the car. As soon as the car was stopped, A1 opened the front right side door of the car, pushed P.W.1 down aside from the driver's seat and drove the car in a high speed along with P.W.2. P.W.1 was thus pushed down from the car near 42nd Road, TVS colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Even before P.W.1 could get up after the violent fall, the car speeded away. P.W.1 raised alarm. Two by standers came to his help. P.W.1 informed about the occurrence. Immediately, thereafter, P.W.1 contacted P.W.4 over phone and informed about the above occurrence. P.W.4 wanted P.W.1 to rush to J.J.Nagar Police Station and to make a complaint. P.W.4 further told that he would also come to the police station straight. Accordingly, P.W.1 reached J.J.Nagar Police Station at 04.00 p.m. on 01.11.2010 and made a complaint (vide Ex.P1). P.W.4 also arrived at the police station.
2.2. P.W.28, the then Inspector of Police of J.J.Nagar Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1112 of 2010 under Sections 341, 363 and 506(ii) of IPC. Ex.P.24 is the FIR. In the complaint, P.W.1 had stated that two persons who could be identified kidnapped P.W.2 with the car. P.W.28, thereafter, forwarded both the complaint (Ex.P.1) and the FIR (Ex.P.24) to the jurisdictional court which were received by the learned Magistrate at 10.20 a.m. on 02.11.2010.
2.3. When P.W.4 had reached the police station, he was in possession of his mobile phone bearing No. 94440 61668. When he was just in the police station, there was a phone call to the said number from the mobile phone No. 98407 19513. He heard a male voice from the other end. The caller told P.W.4 that he along with another had kidnapped P.W.2. He further told that P.W.4 should not go to the police with any complaint nor with any information. He further warned that in the event P.W.4 went to the police station, they would kill P.W.2. Then, the caller cut off the phone talk.
2.4. P.W.4 informed about the same to P.W.28. P.W.28, examined P.W.4 and inquired whether he had any enemies either personally or on account of the business. P.W.4 had virtually no such enemies. He informed the same to P.W.28.
2.5. P.W.4 started independently searching for P.W.2. But, he was not able to get any clue about P.W.2. When that be so, on the same day, in the evening, the car bearing Regn. TN 02 AE 3278, which was stolen away from P.W.1, was found abandoned near Sivan Koil at Padi, Chennai. P.W.28 informed P.W.4 to go immediately to the place of occurrence with a duplicate key of the car as the car was found locked. P.W.4 immediately went along with his employee (P.W.1) to the said place where he found the car. On opening the car, he found that the school bag and the identity card of P.W.2 were lying on the back seat of the car, but, his son was not found in the car. Again P.W.4 started searching for his son with so much of agony. There was again a phone call from the same mobile number viz., 98407 19513. This time, the caller called P.W.4 to his another mobile number. The caller [ a male by voice] demanded from P.W.4 a sum of rupees three crores for releasing his son alive. He further warned P.W.4 not to go to the police with any complaint. P.W.4 told him that he did not have that much of huge amount readily. On hearing this, the caller cut off the connection.
2.6. After some time, again there was a phone call from the very same mobile number and the very same male voice was at the other end. This time, P.W.1 agreed to pay a sum of rupees one crore as ransom. Having heard the same, the caller told P.W.4 to mobilize cash of one crore and keep it ready. The caller further told that he would inform P.W.4, the place and time at which he had to come and hand over the cash of rupees one crore. Every time, as soon as the talk was over, the caller would switch off his mobile phone. Again, the very same caller called P.W.4 to the same mobile number and told him that he should not go to the police and warned him that in the event P.W.4 went to the police, he could not see his son alive. In order to make P.W.4 to believe them, the caller gave the mobile phone to P.W.2 and made him to speak. P.W.2 begged to P.W.4 to come and rescue him quickly as he was afraid of them. Then, on the same day, during night hours, there was a call from the mobile phone and the caller told him that he should hand over cash of rupees one crore on the next day morning.
2.7. With a view to save the life of his loving son, P.W.4 decided to mobilize the amount. From out of his savings and from his business place, he mobilized rupees one crore and kept them ready. On the next day morning , that was on 02.11.2010, P.W.4 was waiting for a call from the kidnappers. But, there was no call. P.W.4 became restless. While so, in the after noon, there was a phone call to the mobile phone of P.W.4 from the very same caller. The caller asked him as to whether cash of rupees one crore was ready. P.W.4 told that he was keeping cash of rupees one crore ready to pay him. Immediately, the caller directed P.W.4 that while bringing the cash, he should alone come and he should not take anybody with him. P.W.4 told him that since he was bringing such a huge amount of money, he could not come alone in the car and, therefore, he would take two of his friends to accompany him. At that time also, the caller warned P.W.4 not to go to the police and further told that he would kill his son in the event, he went to any police. After some time, again the caller spoke to P.W.4 from the same cell phone number. This time, he asked P.W.4 as to whether he was ready keeping the amount. The caller further wanted him to say as to what was the car in which P.W.4 would come with the amount. P.W.4 told that he would come in Chevrolet Aveo car which belonged to P.W.4. The caller wanted P.W.4 to start the car and drive the same. He further told P.W.4 not to disconnect the call and wanted him to attend the call and simultaneously to drive the car. As earlier told, P.W.1 had taken a friend of him by name Mr.Thirumavalavan (P.W.5) and another friend by name Mr.Anbazhagan in the car. P.W.5 sat on the back seat of the car. P.W.4 handed over him a sum of rupees one crore in a bag. The currency notes given as ransom were in 167 bundles, each bundle containing 100 currency notes. The details are as follows:-
(1) 50 bundles of Rs.1,000/- currency notes (2) 97 bundles of Rs.500/- currency notes (3) 10 bundles of Rs.100/- currency notes (4) 10 bundles of Rs.50/- currency notes Mr.Anbazhagan drove the car. As directed by the caller, P.W.4 was attending the call and the car driven by Mr.Anbazhagan moved out of the compound wall of the house. The caller directed P.W.4 to take a right turn. Accordingly, P.W.4 told Mr.Anbazhagan to take a right turn. When the car reached III Street, the caller directed P.W.4 to turn the car towards the 3rd Street. Accordingly, P.W.4 told Mr.Anbazhagan to drive the car to III Street. When the car reached a particular place, the caller told P.W.4 to note a motor cycle parked by the side of the road. He wanted P.W.4 to come near the said motor cycle. Accordingly, the car was driven towards the motor cycle and it was stopped. There were two persons standing near the motor cycle wearing helmets. Both of them were wearing red colour T-Shirts. They told P.W.4 to hand over the cash. P.W.4 told them that he would hand over the cash provided P.W.2 was shown to him. The place where this transaction took place was the road junction like T-Junction. They wanted P.W.2 to turn towards V Street of Anna Nagar and note a Maruti Swift car parked at a distance of a few yards. They told him that P.W.2 was in the dickey of the car. P.W.4 told them that he would hand over the cash only after seeing his son. From the place where they were standing, one of them, operated a remote and the Maruti Swift car dickey opened. P.W.4 went near the said car and opened the front door. But, P.W.2 came out from the dickey. Then, P.W.4 gave a signal to P.W.5 to hand over the cash. Accordingly, P.W.5 handed over the bag containing rupees one crore to one of them. On the helmets, the word Krish was found printed (M.Os.9 and 10). P.W.4 noticed that the number plate of the motor cycle was covered by pasting a paper so as to conceal the registration number. So, he was unable to see the registration number of the motor cycle. Then, both of them fled away in the said motor cycle. Immediately, P.W.4 took P.W.2 with P.W.5 and P.W.6 he returned home and then informed P.W.28 about the fact that he had rescued his son. P.W.28 examined P.W.4 and others.
2.8. P.W.28, then proceeded to the place from where P.W.2 was rescued. The maruti swift car bearing Regn. No.TN 48 L 6460 was still found parked at the same place that was at H-Block, V Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. The dickey of the car remained opened.
2.9. P.W.28, then summoned a Finger Print Expert to the said place. P.W.24, the Finger Print Expert, came to the said place and thoroughly examined the car at 03.00 p.m. on 02.11.2010. He found that there were two chance finger prints on the car. P.W.24 developed the same and took photographs [S1 and S2]. P.W.28, seized the said car and brought the same to the police station after having prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. P.W.28 deployed for policemen to have an eye on the car where it was parked at H-Block, 5th street , Anna Nagar, Chennai hopping that the kidnappers might come there to take back the car. Since, they did not come , he recovered the car at 12.00 noon on 03.11.2010 under Ex.P.14 mahazar.
2.10. P.W.28, then verified with the Regional Transport Officer as to who the owner of the motor cycle bearing Regn. No.TN 02 T 2288, in which the kidnappers had escaped with cash, was. It revealed that one Vijay Son of Ramaraj, resident of No.252/7, Pioneer Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai, was the owner of the vehicle. When P.W.28 went to the said house, it was found locked. Then, P.W.28 altered the case into one under Sections 341, 386, 364-A and 506(ii) of IPC. Ex.P.47 is the express alteration report. He forwarded the said report to the court.
2.11. While so, the motor cycle bearing Regn. TN 02 T 2288 in which the kidnappers had fled away from the scene of occurrence, had met with an accident and dashed against one Mr.Ravi. This happened on 02.11.2010 around 09.00 p.m. At the place of accident, a mob gathered and those two persons in the motor cycle (kidnappers) attempted to attack the victim-Mr.Ravi and fled away in the same motor cycle. On a complaint, a separate case was registered in this regard.
2.12. On 03.11.2010 at 08.00 a.m. near Pioneer Colony, 100 feet road, Anna Nagar West Chennai, two persons were found riding the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 02 T 2288. P.W.28, with the help of a police party intercepted the motor cycle. P.W.28, during interrogation, came to know that those two persons were the kidnappers namely, A1 and A2. P.W.28 immediately arrested them.
2.13. While in custody, A1 gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.12 and one Mr.Vinothkumar at 09.15 a.m. He produced a Nokia Cellphone (M.O.12) and a knife(M.O.11). P.W.28 recovered the same under a mahazar(Ex.P10). In his confession, A1 disclosed that he had concealed rupees fifty lakhs in cash in his house. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced rupees fifty lakhs. P.W.28 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P13). From A2, P.W.28 recovered a knife (M.O.13) and the Hero Honda CBZ Motor Cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 02 T 2288 (M.O.8). In pursuance of his confession, A2 took police and the witnesses to his house and produced a sum of rupees fifty lakhs cash from his house. P.W.28 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P.12). On returning to the police station, P.W.28, obtained the sample finger prints of both A1 and A2 and forwarded them to the Finger Print Expert for comparison. P.W.24 compared the same with the chance finger prints. He found that the right thumb impression of A1 tallied with the one of the chance finger prints lifted from the Maruti Swift Car (M.O.14). Similarly, the right middle finger print of A2 tallied with the second chance finger print lifted from the car. Ex.P.35 is his report.
2.14. Both A1 and A2 were later on produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand and they were accordingly remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, on the orders of the learned Magistrate, P.W.28 took police custody of both the accused between 08.11.2010 and 11.11.2010. While in custody, on 10.11.2010 at 11.00 a.m. A1 gave yet another confession statement in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness. Similarly, A2 also gave a voluntary confession. In his confession, A1 disclosed that he had hidden the car key of the Maruti Swift Dzire car (M.O.14) and another key [M.O.3] of the Tavera car bearing Regn. No.TN 02 AE 3278, a black colour laptop [M.O.15], an iphone [M.O.16], two helmets (M.Os.10 & 9). In pursuance of the said disclosure statement , A1 took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced the above material objects. P.W.28 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P17). Similarly, A2 in his confession disclosed the place where he had hidden the cellphone with mobile No.95000 33337, a copy of his driving license, a laptop, a key of Maruti car and green colour T-Shirt. In pursuance of the same, he produced a laptop (M.O.20), a cellphone (M.O.17), a driving license (M.O.19), a key of the Maruti car (M.O.14) and a T-Shirt (M.O.6). P.W.28 recovered the same under a mahazar [Ex.P.18].
2.15. P.W.28, thereafter, examined one Mr.Dinesh (P.W.16) from whom the accused had purchased SIM Card bearing mobile No. 98407 19513 for their mobile phone. Then, P.W.28 produced the accused to the court for judicial remand. P.W.28 again took A1 and A2 into police custody as per the orders of the learned Magistrate between 11.11.2010 and 15.11.2010. While in police custody, on 13.11.2010 at 11.30 a.m. A1 gave yet another confession statement voluntarily in which he disclosed that he would identify a Browsing Centre known as "Tower Net Zone". In pursuance of the same, A1 took the police and the witnesses to the said place and identified a computer. [Later on it turned out that the said computer was used by the accused to create the fake driving license]. The hard-disc of the computer [M.O.21] was seized by P.W.28 under a mahazar (Ex.P24). Similarly, A2 in pursuance of his disclosure statement, took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the original registration certificate of the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 02 T 2288, a tax token and an insurance policy for the said vehicle. Accordingly, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced the above documents (ivde Ex.P.26 to P28).
2.16. Then, the accused identified P.W.20. P.W.28 examined him and came to know that the accused had made fake number plate bearing No. TN 48 L 6460 for the Maruthi Swift Dzire - stolen car. P.W.28 obtained the sample hand writings of the accused and forwarded them for comparison. At the request of P.W.28, test identification parade was conducted on 19.11.2010 by P.W.27, the then Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur, in which P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 and one Mr.Vinothkumar identified A1 and A2. Ex.P.41, Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.43 are the proceedings of the Magistrate. On completing the investigation, on 29.11.2010 he laid charge sheet against both A1 and A2.
3. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed as many as ten charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 28 witnesses were examined, 50 documents and 22 material objects were marked.
4.0. Out of the said witness, P.W.1, the driver of the car has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. He has stated that after the school hour was over in the evening P.W.2 came out of the school and got into the car. He has further stated that these two accused who came there suddenly also got into the said car. He has further narrated the subsequent happenings as we have already elaborated. He has identified these two accused as the kidnappers. He identified these two persons in the test identification parade also. P.W.2 is the victim. He has also narrated the entire occurrence as to how, he was kidnapped from the school and as to how he was rescued. He has identified both the accused as the kidnappers during trial as well as in the test identification parade.
4.1. P.W.3 was working in the construction concern run by P.W.4 During the year 2010, he was employed in a company in Mumbai. On few occasions, A2 had visited the work place of P.W.3. In such a way, A2 was known to him. After he came down to Chennai and started working under P.W.4, he had no occasion to meet A2. According to him, on 01.11.2010, around 03.00 p.m., he had gone to a Hardware Shop known as "Venkateswara Hardwares" at Mogappair, Chennai to purchase nails. The said shop is situated near DAV Senior Secondary School, Mogappair, Chennai. He went in his motor cycle and parked the same near make-shift shop where soup was sold. When he started taking soup, just in front of his motor cycle, he found a Maruti Swift Dzire Car (M.O.7) had already been parked. A2 and yet another person [later on identified as A1] , got down from the said car. P.W.3 wanted to speak to A2. But, they suddenly crossed the main door and went near the DAV school. Therefore, he could not stop A2. Within a short while, he found P.W.2 coming out of the school and getting into a Tavera Car owned by P.W.4. P.W.2 was in the driver's seat. These two accused, according to P.W.3 got into the same car by opening the back doors of the car. Thereafter, the said Tavera Car went away. According to him, he did not take it seriously. Then after having purchased nails , he returned to his work place. On the same day, he went to Namakkal, his native place. On 02.11.2010 according to him, he learnt from the newspaper reports that P.W.2 had been kidnapped. Immediately, according to him, he tried to contact P.W.4 to inform him about the occurrence. But, P.W.4 did not pick up his phone. Therefore, he started from Namakkal immediately came down to Chennai on 03.11.2010 and informed about the occurrence. He identified these two accused in the test identification parade as well as during trial.
4.2. P.W.4, the father of P.W.2 and the employer of P.W.1 has also vividly spoken about the way in which he rescued P.W.2 from these two accused which we have already narrated in the earlier paragraph of this judgement. P.W.5 is a friend of P.W.4. He has stated that he went along with P.W.4 to rescue P.W.2 by paying rupees one crore. He has narrated the entire occurrence in a vivid fashion. P.W.6 is also an employee under P.W.4. He has also stated that he accompanied P.W.4 and P.W5 when they went to rescue the child by paying rupees one crore. He has narrated the entire occurrence as spoken by P.Ws.4 and 5. He has further stated that he has identified these two accused in the test identification parade. He identified the accused during trial also.
4.3. P.W.7 has stated that he was running an Ironing Shop at T.V.S.Colony in Anna Nagar. According to him, on 01.11.2010, in the evening, P.W.1 was pushed down from a car at 42nd Street. The person who fell cried for help. He rushed to help him. He told that the car and the child were kidnapped and he was pushed down by the kidnappers. P.W.8 was the one who was running the soup shop in which P.W.3 drank soup around 03.00 p.m. on 01.11.2011. He has stated that within a short while, after the DAV school hour was over on 01.11.2011, he heard that a child who came out of the school had been kidnapped. P.W.9 was the watchman in the DAV school during the relevant time. According to him around 03.30 p.m. he came to know that the child, who came out of the school had been kidnapped by somebody. P.W10 has stated that he was working as a salesman in SriramTextiles at Arumbakkam in Chennai. He has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and a rough sketch by the police at the place where P.W.2 was rescued. He has further stated about the recovery of M.O.7 from the said place of occurrence. P.W.11 has stated that he was working as an Accountant in Sriram Textiles which was owned by P.W.4. He has also spoken about the recovery of the Tavera Car bearing Regn. No.TN 02 AE 3278 with on 01.11.2010 at 06.00 p.m. near Shiva Temple at Padi where it was abandoned. He has also spoken about the recovery of the identity card of P.W.2 and his school bag from the said car.
4.4. P.W.12 has spoken about the confession by A1 to the police and the consequential recoveries of a knife and a Nokia cellphone and cash of Rs.50,00,000/- made out of the said disclosure statement under mahazars Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.13. He has also spoken about the confession of A2 made at 09.15 a.m. on 03.11.2010 and the consequential recoveries of a knife, the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 22 T 2288 (M.O.8) and cash of Rs.50,00,000/- under mahazars Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. P.W.13 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch near DAV Senior Secondary School from where P.W.2 was kidnapped. P.W.14 has spoken about the confession made by A1 on 10.11.2010 at 11.00 a.m. while in police custody and the consequential recoveries of the key of M.O.7-Car, Key of M.O.4-Car, laptop and Iphone. He has further spoken about the confession made by A2 at 12.00 noon on 10.11.2010 and the consequential recoveries of another key of M.O.7, laptop, Iphone, driving license and T-Shirt.
4.5. P.W.15 was a Legal Officer in the Bharti Airtel Limited at Santhome in Chennai. According to him, the investigating officer had asked for the details of the person in whose name the mobile phone number 98407 19513 stood and the call details for the relevant period. According to him, Ex.P.20 was an application made for getting the SIM Card under the prepaid scheme. Ex.P.20 is the Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form. According to the same, the customer's name is Mr.Appalaraju S/o Krishnan. In support of the same, a Xerox copy of the driving licence [Ex.P.21] of Mr.Appalaraju was given. Ex.P.22 is the Distributor Telecalling Feedback Form. P.W.16 was a dealer selling SIM Cards. According to him, Ex.P.20 Application was submitted to him and the SIM Card was handed over by him to A1. The Application, Ex.P.20 was filled up by A1 in his own hand writing. P.W.17 is yet another distributor of SIM Card under Bharti Airtel Limited. He was running his Airtel Sim Card selling business under the name and style "Rithika Enterprises" at Saligramam in Chennai. According to him, whenever any SIM Card was to be sold by a shop keeper, he would forward the application to him and after verifying the same, he would in turn forward the same to Bharti Airtel Limited. He has further stated that Ex.P.22 was forwarded by him Bharti Airtel Limited.
4.6. P.W.18 has spoken about the disclosure statement made by A1 while in police custody on 13.11.2010 at 11.30 a.m. and the conseuqential recoveries of a hard disk from a computer from "Tower Net Zone" shop. He has also spoken about the disclosure statement made by A2 at 12.00 non on 13.11.2010 and the consequential recovery of Original Registration (Ex.P.26), Tax token (Ex.P.27), the original insurance policy (M.O.28) for the motor cycle-M.O.8 under Ex.P.29-Mahazar.
4.7. PW.19 has stated that he was working at Mercurio Pallia Logistics and his job was to load and unload few new cars. On 23.11.2009, the new cars were loaded at Gurgaon in the lorry bearing Regn. No. HR 55 B 9627 came to his company in Chennai with the help of the other workmen, he unloaded the same on 05.12.2009 at Indus Car Yard near Poonamallee near Chennai. Few cars were unloaded at Cars India, Ambattur. Since, a full day was taken to unload the cars, the unloaded cars were parked outside the Hyundai Company at Irrungattukottai. On the next day he received a phone call from Indus Motor that one of the cars parked had been stolen away. Then, he made a complaint at T-12, Poonamallee Police Station, upon which a case was registered in Crime No.905 of 2009 on 06.12.2009. According to him, after one year, he received a phone message from J.J.Nagar Police Station that that the said car [M.O.7] had been recovered. [The said stolen car was stated to have been later on used by the accused from which P.W.2 was later on rescued].
4.8. P.W.20 has stated that he was doing number plate business for motor vehicles. His business place was at No.49, Gajapathi Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. He has stated that once these two accused came to his shop and ordered for a number plate with a number TN 48 L 6460. He charged rupees three hundred for the same and then, after making the number plate, he gave the same to the accused. [This number plate was fixed to the car stolen way from Indus Motors at Poonamallee and that is how, M.O.7-car was bearing the regn. No. TN 48 L 6460].
4.9. P.W.21 was the Personal Assistant to the Regional Transport Officer, Srirangam, Trichirapalli. According to him, on 09.11.2010, the investigating officer, had sent a letter under Ex.P.30 calling for the registration details of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 48 L 6460. On verification, it was found out that the said registration number had been allotted to a Yamaha motor cycle belonging to one Mr.C.Udhayakumar of Salai Road, Trichy-18. In this regard, he gave a report to the investigating officer under Ex.P.31.
4.10. P.W.22 was working at the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and as requested by the investigating officer, he got the call details for five mobile phone numbers 95000 33337, 98406 33337, 95000 71668,94440 61668 and 98407 19513 and also the recordings. He secured the same from the respective service providers [vide Ex.P.32-Call details and M.O.22-Hard Discs-2 Nos.].
4.11. P.W.23 was working as the Superintendent at the Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruvallur. According to him, on 15.11.2010, the investigating officer sent a letter to him under Ex.P.33 calling for the details in respect of driving licence No.F/TN/061330/2001 dated 13.11.2001 allegedly issued in the name of one Mr.Appalaraju. On verification of the records of the Office, he found that the said driving licence was not at all issued by the office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruvallur. In this regard , he gave a report under Ex.P.34. According to this report and according to the evidence of P.W.23, the driving license which was submitted to P.W.16 was a forged one in the name of a non existent person viz., Appala Raju.
4.12. P.W.24 was the Finger Print Expert in the Police Department. According to him, on 01.11.2010, the Inspector of Police, requested him to visit the place where Maruti Swift Dzire Car (M.O.7) was parked and to examine the same. Accordingly, he examined the car. On such examination, on 02.11.2010, he found two chance finger prints in the rear view mirror of the car. He photographed and enlarged the same. Later, after the arrest of the accused, according to him, the finger prints of A1 and A2 were sent to him for comparison. When he compared the same both the chance finger prints tallied with the specimen finger prints of A1. Ex.P.34 is his report.
4.13. P.W.25 is a Hand Writing Expert working in the Government Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai. According to him, a request was made by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate under letter No.5034/2010 dated 19.12.2010 to compare the hand writings in Ex.P.20-Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form submitted for purchasing SIM Card with the hand writings of the accused. According to him, the hand writings of A1 tallied with the hand writings in Ex.P.20.
4.14. P.W.26, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Police Station has stated that on the complaint made by P.W.19, a case was registered in Crime No.905 of 2009 on 06.12.2009 in respect of missing of a new maruti swift dzire car which was unregistered. In the complaint, engine and chassis numbers were all furnished. P.W.27 was the then learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate. He has stated that on 19.11.2010, he conducted test identification parade, in which, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 6 and one Mr.Vinothkumar participated. According to him, they have identified both A1 and A2 correctly on all the three occasions. P.W.28 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1 at 04.00 p.m. on 01.1.2010 and investigation done by him. He has elaborately spoken about the entire investigation and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false. On their side, 4 witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 4 and five documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
6. D.W.1-Mr.R.Sudalaiandi @ Selvaraj has stated that he was an Assistant Chief Reporter in SUN Television Network Limited. During the year 2010, he was in the Sun News Division. According to him, on 03.11.2010, the then Commissioner of Police Mr.Rajendran, arranged for a press meet at the Office of the Commissioner of Police at Chennai. In the said press meet, he also participated. He has further stated that the entire press meet was videographed by him. Ex.D1 is the Compact Disc containing the recordings of the press meet which was telacast live in SUN TV channel. He has stated that during the said press meet, currencies already recovered from the kidnappers of P.W.2 were paraded for view by the reporters. The Commissioner told the reporters that a sum of Rs.98,73,000/- alone was paid as ransom to the kidnappers for rescuing P.W.2. The Commissioner of Police further told that at the time when the ransom was given to the kidnappers, the police party were very much available in the said place. He further told that police party allowed the kidnappers to escape from the scene of occurrence believing that they could nab them later. [The compact disc was displayed in open court and the above statements of the Commissioner of Police were verified by the Judge in open court in the presence of the learned senior counsel for the defence and the learned Public Prosecutor for State]. Ex.D3 is the yet another Compact Disc containing press meet of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. He has further stated that at the time of press meet one Mr.Shakeel Akhtar, Assistant Commissioner of Police was by his side. He has further stated that these two accused were also produced before the reporters and made to stand by his side throughout press meet.
7. D.W.3, was the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. During trial, a petition was filed by the accused in Crl.M.P.No.1832 of 2014 in S.C.No.70 of 2011 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu,seeking to summon him as a defence witness to speak about the facts spoken by him before the press reporters during the press meet held on 03.11.2010. That petition was resisted by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, allowed the said petition. Aggrieved over the same, the the prosecution filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.24768 of 2014 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. That petition was dismissed on 12.12.2014 and a direction was issued to Mr.T.Rajendran, the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai City to get into the box as defence witness and to speak the truth of the facts in issue and the relevant facts which was within his knowledge. Accordingly, he was examined as D.W.3 on 05.02.2015. In his evidence, D.W3 has admitted that the conducted a press meet on 03.11.2010 at his Office at Chennai in connection with the present case of kidnapping for ransom. In his evidence, he has stated that he did not remember that he presented both A1 and a2 before the reporters during press meet and introduced them to the press personnel. He has further stated that he was unable to recollect as to whether money seized from the accused were also displayed during press meet. He has further stated that he did not remember as to whether the father of the victim [P.W.4] was present in the press meet. He has further stated that he wanted to assure the people of Chennai that the Chennai City Police could be depended upon in times of emergency or in any eventuality. That was the reason why, he had conducted press meet. He has further stated that he did not remember that the press meet was relayed in live by the press media.
8. At that juncture, the compact disc was played through a laptop in open court and the witness was allowed to watch them. After having watched the same, D.W.3 has admitted that the video had shown that it was a live interview. When he was confronted that he had told the press that the amount recovered from the accused was Rs.98,73,000/-. He has stated that based on the information given by his officer, he told so to the press. For the next question, he has answered that his Deputy Officer had idea about the same. He has further stated that at the time of rescue operation in which the boy was rescued from the car there was enough police strength surrounded the area. He has further stated that the police personnel were deployed at the distance of 1 - 2 kms surrounded that area. Based on the operation details furnished to him by his junior officers, he gave the said information. He has further admitted that during press meet he told that the police officer had arranged for the exchange of ransom with the accused. He has further stated that press interview was based on the general information by his officer to assure people of Chennai that they could depend upon the police. At that juncture, the press meet interview recorded in CD marked as Ex.D.3 was displayed through a laptop in open court and witness watched it. After having watched the same, he has stated that in the press meet along with him there were few more police officers present and the accused were also present before the press reporters. But, he has stated that he did not remember as to when and where this videograph was made. He has further stated that he did not know by whom video coverage was made. He has also stated that he did not know whether the amount which was displayed during interview was videographed at Chennai Commissionerate.
9. D.W.2 is the father of A2. He was residing at No.252/7, Pioneer Colony, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai 600101. He was formerly working as Superintendent in Customs Departments and he retired from service in the year 2005. A2-Vijay is his son and A1-Prabhu is his sister's son. After having secured a degree in Engineering, A2 had gone for London to secure a degree in M.B.A., and he was working in London. A1 was studying Engineering in Anna University and then he went to Singapore where he was working for some time. He has further stated that one Mr.Karunakaran [who is the sister's husband of D.W.2] was working under P.W.4. Thus, Mr.Karunakaran was closely known to P.W.4. D.W.2 has further stated that for his Thirtieth Wedding Anniversary, he had invited P.W.4 and his family members. Accordingly P.W.4 and his wife participated int he said function. IN that function, A2 was introudced to P.W.4. He has further stated that at that time, since A2 was in UK, he told P.W.4 that he would like to start a business in India. As told by PW.4, A2 went to Mumbai and made a study in respect of the business of P.W.4 there. Thereafter, since A2 believed that running such business could not be profitable, he gave up the idea of the said business. As A2 wanted to start some other business. A1 who was in Singapore was brought back to Chennai by A2 for starting a new business. Since the business which was sought to be commenced by A1 and A2 would give a tough competition to the business of P.W.4, P.W.4 threatened A2 of dire consequences. A2 told him about the same. Thereafter, on 01.11.2010, he heard that P.W.2 was found missing. On 02.11.2010 at 02.00 p.m. he came to know that P.W.2 had returned. On the same day, he went to the house of P.W.4 and consoled him. On 02.11.2010 at 01.30 p.m. the police came to his house and took him under the guise of interrogation. They took A1 also. Thereafter, on 04.11.2010, the motor vehicle belonging to A2 was also taken by the police from his house. He has further stated that he owns properties worth rupees eight crores and similarly, the family of A1 also owns vast extent of properties . Thus, according to him, both A1 and A2 hail from rich families. He has also stated that on 03.11.2010, from the TV News he came to know that A1 and A2 had been implicated falsely in the case.
10. D.W.4 was the Chief of Bureau, The Hindu English Daily. He has been working so from the year 2011. He has stated that he has vividly reported about the details of the case right from the registration of the case. He has also participated in the press meet held by D.W.3 on 03.11.2010. He has further stated that he photographed the said press meet. He had interview with D.W.3 and he had reported the same in Hindu English Daily under Ex.D.5. He had published the photographs taken at the time of interview . In that photographs there were twenty two bundles of hundred rupee currencies paraded.
11. In fact, the defence taken by the accused was that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they did not commit any crime at all. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellants/A1 and A2 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 and A2 have come up with this criminal appeal.
12. We have heard the learned senior counsel Mr.N.R.Elango appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.M.Maharaja appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.
13. There is no denial of the fact that P.W.2 was studying in DAV Senior Higher Secondary School at Mogappair in Chennai. From the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 , it has been clearly established that on 01.11.2010, in the morning, he went to the School. The school-hour was over at 03.05 p.m. as usual. This has been spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2 as well as the watchman of the school [P.W.9]. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that P.W.1 went near the school, took P.W.2 to the car. P.W.2 got into the car through the front left side door and P.W.1 got into the car through driver's door. There is no denial of the fact that the said car (M.O.4) Tavera Car, bearing Regn. No.TN 02 AE 3278, belonged to P.W.4. There is also no denial of the fact that P.W.1 was the driver of the said car.
14. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that even before P.W.1 could get into the car through the front left side door, two persons got into the car by opening the rear side doors of the car, one by opening the right side rear door and the other rear left side door of the car. Suddenly, on entering into the car, they closed the doors and the person who was sitting behind the driver's seat put the knife above the neck of P.W.1 and the other man who was sitting on the rear left seat of the car, put the knife on the neck of P.W.2. Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not raise any alarm. They directed P.W.2 to start the car and drive the same. Accordingly, he moved the car. After some distance, they directed P.W.1 to stop the car. Accordingly, out of fear, P.W.1 stopped the car at 42nd Street. At that time, one of the persons got down from the car, opened the driver's door and pulled P.W.1 from the driver's seat and pushed him down and then he got into the car and drove away the car with P.W.2. P.W.7 who was running Ironing shop at 42nd Street found P.W.1 being pushed down from the car. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have identified these two accused as the persons who got into the car and kidnapped P.W.2 along with the car. We find no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 in this regard.
15. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that these two accused were not previously known to P.Ws.1 and 2 and since these two accused were paraded by D.W.3 during press meet and since these two witnesses had occasion to see them, no weightage could be given to the evidences of these witnesses in respect of identification made during the test identification parade. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel these two witnesses cannot be believed.
16. We find no force at all in the said argument. Assuming that P.Ws.1 and 2 had occasion to see A1 and A2 before the test identification parade was conducted, on that score, we cannot reject the identification made by these two witnesses in court. It is not as if these witnesses had a fraction of a second or a fraction of a minute to have a glimpse of the faces of the culprits. P.W.2 was in the custody of the accused for many hours. Therefore, the faces and other physical features of A1 and A2 would have got imprinted in the mind of P.W.2 who happened to be a child. Similarly, P.W.1 also had occasion to see A1 and A2 for quite some time, until he was pushed down from the car. Thus, assuming that there is some force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that these two witnesses had occasion to see the accused before the test identification parade was conducted, on that score, their evidences cannot be rejected. In this regard, we may refer to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra, [1998] 3 SCC 625, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"23. ... ... ... ... ... From the above-mentioned aspect, the evidence of PW42 and PW45 has been rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court as PW42 is a rickshaw driver who had no opportunity to see closely the appellants whom he took to Rooman bungalow in the night. So also PW45's identification of A1 in court without his participation in the TIP has also no probative value inasmuch as he went to the shop of the witness as one of the customers and there was no specific reason why he should watch A1 closely. But the same is not the position with PW29 and PW34. They were talking to the deceased Rohan Ohol at the time when the appellants came to Rooman Bungalow. Indeed A1 wished the deceased Rohan who introduced A1 as Nitin Anil Swargey. Thereafter, A1 introduced A2 and A3 to Rohan Ohol and PW29 and PW34. They talked together for about 7-8 minutes and on Rohan Ohol's telling them to sit inside the house, they left their soiled shoes in the verandah and entered the house. It can safely be presumed that had they not given the name and description of the appellants at the earliest when their statement was recorded by the police on 24-7-1992, the defence in their searching and lengthy cross-examination would have brought on record omissions and contradictions with reference to their earlier statement given to the police. As such, evidence of identification of the appellants at their trial by the said witnesses even without the corroboration of the identification parade, had been rightly relied upon by the trial court as well as by the High Court. We, therefore, find no illegality in the judgment of the courts below in accepting their evidence of identification. "
17. In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we hold that the identification of the accused made by P.W.2 and P.W.2 deserves to be accepted. Thus, from the evidences of these two witnesses, the prosecution, in our considered view, has clearly established that P.W.2 was kidnapped by these two accused in the car (M.O.4).
18. The conduct of P.W.1, in this regard, also assumes importance. Immediately, he spoke to P.W.4 about the occurrence. P.W.4 wanted him to go over to J.J. Nagar Police Station and make a complaint. Accordingly , at 04.00 p.m. on 01.11.2010 P.W.1 made a complaint, upon which, the present case was registered. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that FIR would not have come into being at 04.0 p.m. on 01.11.2010 inasmuch as the FIR had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 10.20 a.m. on 02.11.2010. The learned senior counsel would submit that absolutely there is no explanation for the said delay. It is true. This delay was caused by the police for which, the prosecution has got no explanation to offer. In our considered view, for the lapse on the part of the police in dispatching the FIR to the court at once, we cannot throw the entire case as false as we are very much impressed by the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the occurrence had taken place at 03.15 p.m. on 01.11.2010. Further, the FIR is not against these two accused. It was made only against unknown persons who could be identified. If the names of these accused had been introduced in the FIR, the delay in dispatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate may be considered as adverse to the case of the prosecution to some extent. In the instant case, looking at from any angle, we do not find any reason to hold that the FIR would not have come into being at 04.00 p.m. on 01.11.2010. We hold that the FIR had been promptly lodged without any delay that too within 45 minutes after the occurrence. The delay in dispatching the FIR to the court which, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, does not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution at all.
19. P.W.4, the father of P.W.2 has stated that he received a phone call from P.W.1 around 03.15 p.m. that his son [P.W.2] had been kidnapped by two pesons along with the car [M.O.4]. This is the earliest information passed on by P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W.4 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that he wanted him to go to the police station immediately and to make a complaint. Then, he too went to J.J.Nagar Police Station immediately. Thus, the registration of the case at 04.00 p.m. has been proved by P.Ws.1, 4 and 28, who registered the case.
20. After the above occurrence was over, when P.W.4 was in the police station, he received a phone call from the mobile phone No. 98407 19513. According to him, the caller demanded a sum of rupees five crores as ransom to release P.W.2. The voice of the said caller was not recorded so as to compare the same with the voice of any of these accused. But, P.W.4 has stated that it was a male voice. The prosecution has made an attempt to prove that the said voice was that of A1 inasmuch, as according to him, the mobile phone No. 98407 19513 was used only by A1. In this regard, the prosecution has examined P.W.15, P.W.16 and PW.17. P.W.16 has stated that for purchasing the SIM Card from P.W.16, A1 came and submitted an application [Ex.P.20-Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form]. In the said Enrolment Form, the name of the customer was mentioned as K.Appalaraju Son of Krishnan, residing at No.32, Raman Apartments, Santhi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai. There is also a photograph affixed on the same. P.W.16 has stated that it was only A1, who came, filled up the Enrolment Form [Ex.P.20] and handed over the same to him for purchasing the SIM Card. Unfortunately, there was no test identification parade conducted by the police to enable P.W.16 to identify A1. Therefore, the identification made by P.W.16 for the first time in court that it was A1 who came and submitted Enrolment Form [Ex.P.20] cannot be given any weightage. But, the fact that this form [Ex.P.20] was filled up only by A1 and the SIM Card was obtained only by him has been proved by the other evidences. The said Enrolment Form [Ex.P.20] was sent for comparison by a Hand Writing Expert. The hand writings of A1 were obtained during investigation by the investigation officer. The admitted hand writings of A1 were accordingly compared by P.W.25, the Hand Writing Expert working in the Government Forensic Sciences Laboratory with the disputed writings in the Enrolment Form [Ex.P.20]. He has given a clear opinion that the hand writings in Ex.P.20-Enrolment Form tallied with the admitted hand writings of A1. We do not find any reason to doubt the said opinion offered by P.W.25. There can also be no dispute that the sample hand writings were made by A1. Thus, from the opinion offered by P.W.25, the prosecution has clearly established that the SIM card bearing mobile phone No. 98407 19513 was purchased only by A1, but, in the name of one Mr.K.Appalaraju Son of Krishnan of Anna Nagar. There is no evidence available on record that there is a person by name Mr.K.Appalaraju. A1 has got no explanation as to how and under what circumstances, he filled up the Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form [Ex.P20]. From the available evidences, it is inferable that Mr.K.Appalaraju is a non existent person. But, A1 had purchased the SIM card in the said name.
21. Ex.P.21 also plays a vital role in this regard. Ex.P.21 is the driving licence allegedly issued in the name of Mr.K.Appalaraju at the Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruvallur. The said driving licence [Ex.P.21) is in the name of Mr.K.Appalaraju whose date of birth has been given as 14.10.1982 and the address of the licencee has been mentioned as No.34, Raman Apartments, Shanthi Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai. This driving licence [Ex.P.21] was annexed to the Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form [Ex.P.20] for the purpose of purchasing the SIM card. It was only based on this driving licence P.W.15 was satisfied with the identity of A1. The genuineness of the driving licence was verified with the Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruvallur. P.W.23, the Superintendent, Regional Transport Office, Tiruvallur, has stated that according to the records maintained at the office, the said driving licence [Ex.P.21] was not at all issued by his Office. In this regard, he has given a report under Ex.P.34. This witness was not cross examined by the defence and thus, there is no dispute that Ex.P.21 is a forged driving licence in the name of a fictitious person. This also would go to further strengthen the case of the prosecution that it was A1 who had obtained the SIM Card bearing mobile phone number 98407 19513. P.W.16 and P.W.17 have also stated about the sale of the SIM card bearing mobile phone No. 98407 19513 to A1. From these evidences, we hold that the prosecution has proved that the said SIM card bearing mobile No. 98407 19513 was used only by A1 during the relevant period.
22. Though the prosecution has produced the call details of the above said mobile phone number for the relevant period to prove that P.W.4 received the calls from the mobile number 98407 19513 to his mobile phone number demanding ransom, unfortunately, there is no certificate obtained as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act to prove the said electronic evidence as a primary evidence. Therefore, the call details marked as Ex.P.32 cannot be taken into account at all. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject Ex.P.32 for want of appropriate certificate as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V.Anvar v. P.K.Basheer, 2014 (10) SCC 473. From the evidence of P.W.4 and from the other circumstances, which we have already dealt with, it is crystal clear that A1 demanded a sum of rupees five crores as ransom and later on, he got it reduced to rupees one crore which P.W.4 also agreed to pay.
23. P.W.4 has further stated that the caller warned him not to go to the police station with any complaint. Therefore, according to P.W.4, he mobilized rupees one crore cash and kept it in a bag. Then, the caller told him that he should keep the cash ready and bring the same to the place to be identified by him. The caller further told him that he would call him by 08.00 a.m. on 02.11.2010. But, there was no such phone call at 08.00 a.m. He received the phone call only in the afternoon. P.W.4 has stated that he told the caller that he was ready with cash. The caller wanted him to come alone for which, P.W.4 told that it would be very difficult for him to travel alone carrying such a huge amount. Therefore, the caller allowed him to come with some one else but not with the police. Thereafter, according to P.W.4, he took the help of P.W.5 and Mr.Anbazhagan [who has not been examined as a witness]. Mr.Anbazhagan drove the car. A1 had already ascertained from P.W.4 about the number and colour of the car. This time, P.W.4 and PW.5 went in the Chevrolet Car which was driven by Mr.Anbazhagan. A1 was still in contact over mobile phone giving direction to P.W.4. Accordingly, the car went to the place of occurrence as directed by the caller. As soon as the car was stopped, the caller wanted P.W.4 to turn towards right and told him to see that there was a motor cycle parked and by the side of the same two persons were standing wearing helmets. The kidnappers wanted him to come towards them with the money. P.W.4 wanted them to show P.W.2 to him. The caller immediately told him to turn to his left. When P.W.4 turned to his left, he found a Maurti Swift Dzire car TN 42 K 6460 [M.O.7] parked by the side of the road at a small distance. The caller told P.W.4 that his son was in the dickey of the car. P.W.4 insisted the caller to show him P.W.2. The persons who were standing near the motor cycle operated a remote control by which the door of the dickey of M.O.7 was opened. Thereafter, when P.W.4 went near the car and opened the dickey, P.W.2 came out of the dickey. He hugged him and then, P.W.4 gave a signal to P.W.5 to handover the cash. Accordingly, the cash was handed over by P.W.5 to the accused. The accused immediately thereafter fled away from the scene of occurrence in the motor cycle. From the evidences of P.W.4 and P.W.5, according to the prosecution, the fact that ransom was handed over to the accused has been proved.
24. The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused would assail the same. He would make a heavy reliance on the evidence of D.W.3, the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. D.W.3 has stated in the interview made to the press on 03.11.2010 that at the time when the ransom was transacted by P.W.4 and P.W.5 to the accused, elaborate police deployment was made by the police near the said place. Thus, according to D.W.3, as per the interview held, the ransom was handed over to the accused by P.W.5 under the very nose of the police. In the interview, he has further stated that still the police did not round up the offenders and allowed them to flee away from the scene of occurrence so that they could nab them later on. D.W.3 has stated that this statement was made by him to the press based on the information furnished to him by his subordinate officers. Relying on this part of evidence of D.W.3 and making heavy reliance on Exs.D1 and D3, the learned senior counsel would submit that the story of the prosecution that the ransom was handed over to the accused by P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be true.
25. We have given our anxious consideration to the said argument advanced by the learned senior counsel. We have also gone through the evidence of D.W.3 carefully. We have also played the compact disc Ex.D3 and noted the contents. From these evidences, the defence has established that D.W.3, the then Commissioner of Police in the press meet told that the police personnel were very much available near the scene of occurrence and the ransom was paid under the very nose of the police. But, according to the prosecution, there was no deployment of police and the ransom was not paid under the nose of the police. The explanation offered by D.W.3 is that he gave such an interview to the press only based on the information furnished to him by his subordinate officer. Thus, it is crystal clear that D.W.3 had no personal knowledge about the fact that the police personnel were deployed at the place of occurrence at the time when the ransom was transacted. Thus, his statement to the press was only on hearsay information. Therefore, we cannot give any weightage for the same. From the facts, as spoken by P.Ws.4 and 5, it is crystal clear that the money was mobilized by P.W.4 and without informing the same to the police, they went to the place of occurrence and rescued P.W.2 by paying ransom. P.W.4 has stated that after rescuing P.W.2 by paying the ransom to the accused, he took him to the police station and then he informed the police about the occurrence. Thus, it is crystal clear that the investigating officer and the other police officials had come to know that P.W.2 had been rescued by P.W.4 only after the entire transaction was over and after P.W.4 informed the same to the police.
26. The statement made by D.W.3 during press interview, as we have already stated, was based on some misinformation passed on to him by his subordinate officers. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that being a very responsible Commissioner of Police, he would not have made such a reckless and irresponsible statement. He would further submit that his evidence that he made such a statement only on basis of the information passed on to him by his subordinate officers is only an attempt to explain his conduct and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. He would submit that the statement made by D.W.3 at the time of press interview must be given weightage. But, as we have concluded the statement of D.W.3 to the press was on the basis of misinformation and that it is hit by hearsay rule and therefore, we reject this argument.
27. According to P.W.28, on the arrest of the accused, from A2, a cash of rupees fifty lakhs was recovered. Similarly, on arrest, A1, pursuant to his disclosure statement, produced a cash of rupees fifty lakhs from his house and the same was recovered. Thus, a total sum of rupees one crore was recovered as spoken by P.W.28. P.W.12 who claims to have witnessed the arrest of both A1 and A2, disclosure statements made by them and the consequential recoveries of cash has also stated that a sum of rupees fifty lakhs was seized from A2 and then, another rupees fifty lakhs was recovered from A1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would further submit that the evidences of these witnesses cannot be believed in the light of the evidence of D.W.3. He would point out that D.W.3 in his press interview had stated that the amount transacted by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the accused was only Rs.98,73,000/- and not rupees one crore as it is stated by these witnesses. He has further stated that the total amount recovered from the accused was also only Rs.98,73,000/- and not rupees one crore. The learned senior counsel would submit that had it been true that a sum of rupees one crore was really paid by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the accused and precisely, the said amount of rupees one crore was recovered from them, D.W.3, being the very responsible Commissioner of Police, would not have stated that only a sum of Rs.98,73,000/- was transacted and the said amount of Rs.98,73,000/- alone was recovered from the accused. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, there is a material contradiction with respect to the ransom amount allegedly paid and the cash, later on, recovered from the accused. This, according to the learned senior counsel creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.M.Maharaja, would point out that D.W.3 has stated in his evidence that based on the information given by his subordinate officers he stated that the amount transacted and the amount recovered was only Rs.98,73,000/- He would further submit that since he was not the one who recovered the amount from the accused, his evidence cannot be given any weightage of.
28. There are two aspects in this respect. So far as the payment of rupees one crore by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the accused as ransom is concerned, we have no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.4 and 5. We are impelled to reject the statement made by D.W.3 during press interview. As we have already concluded until P.W.2 was rescued by P.Ws.4 and 5, the fact that P.W.4 had mobilized money and he paid the same to the accused were not known to the police. We have already concluded that the statement of D.W.3 that when the money was paid to the accused by P.Ws.4 and 5, the police officers surrounded that area at a radius of 1 km to 2 kms is an absolute incorrect statement. Neither the police officials nor D.W.3 had any knowledge as to what was the exact amount paid by P.Ws.4 and 5 to the accused as ransom. Therefore, the statement of D.W.3 to the press and electronic media that a sum of Rs.98,73,000/- alone was paid as ransom, is again an incorrect statement based on hearsay information, that too, on misinformation and, therefore, the same is rejected. We accept the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 that a sum of rupees one crore was paid as ransom.
29. As far as the second aspect is concerned, the amount recovered from A1 and A2, according to the investigating officer, was rupees fifty lakhs from each accused. Thus, the total amount recovered was rupees one crore. But, D.W.3, in his statement before the press and electronic media has stated that a sum of Rs.98,73,000/- alone was recovered. The recovery of rupees one crore has been spoken by P.W.28, the investigating officer, who recovered the same, and P.W.12, who witnessed the recoveries of the said amounts. The statement of D.W.3 to the press is again based on misinformation and the same was totally incorrect. This statement is also hit by the hearsay rule. Therefore, the statement of D.W.3 to the press and media that a sum of Rs.98,73,000/- alone was recovered from the accused is an incorrect statement and so, the same is rejected. We hold that a total sum of rupees one core was recovered from the accused as spoken by P.W.28 and P.W.12.
30. The learned senior counsel for the accused would point out that during the press meet D.W.3 had displayed the currency notes allegedly recovered from the accused. There is no dispute over the said fact. He would further point out that the denominations of the currency notes allegedly seized from the accused as per Form-95 submitted to the court are as follows:-
Amount recovered as per Form 95 remitted to court No. of Currency bundles in the Denomination(s) [each bundle containing 100 currency notes] Total No. of bundles produced 1000 in denomination 500 in denomination 100 in denomination 50 in denomina-tion A1-Prabhu 25 48 10
-83
A2-Vijay 25 49
-
10 84Total 50 97 10 10 167 Thus, as per the records available, 50 bundles in the denomination of thousand rupee currency notes; 97 bundles in the denomination of five hundred rupee currency notes; 10 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currency notes; and 10 bundles in the denomination of fifty rupee currency notes were recovered.
31. The learned senior counsel, taking us through the defence document (Ex.D5) and the evidence of D.W.4, would point out that as per the display made during the press interview, there were 22 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currency notes, whereas , according to the police, only 10 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currency alone were recovered. P.W.1, during cross examination has stated that only 10 bundles of 100 rupee currency notes were shown to him as the recovered money from the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to explain as to how there came to be 22 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currency in the photographs taken by the reporter [D.W.4] of The Hindu English Daily during the press interview. If there were 22 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currency, correspondingly, there should have been anomalies in the other number of bundles of currencies displayed by the police. D.W.3 has got no explanation to offer. P.W.28, the investigating officer has admitted during cross examination that in Ex.D.4 Photographs, there were 24 bundles in the denomination of hundred rupee currencies. He has also got no explanation to offer in respect of the said anomaly. From this defence document, it is crystal clear that the cash shown by D.W.3 during press interview would not have actually been the currency notes recovered from the accused. It also needs to be mentioned that in the mahazar, the details of the denominations of the currency notes recovered have not been given. It appears, in order to create an impression among the general public that the case had been efficiently handled by the Chennai City Police, D.W.3 had virtually stage managed by making a press statement and also by displaying the currency notes which were also contrary to the facts. The action of D.W.3 deserves to be deprecated. He, being the Commissioner of Police, should have been more responsible before going to the press to ascertain the facts to avoid any damage being caused to the case of the prosecution, at a later stage during trial by such press meet. But for the press statement made by him and the display of the currency notes made by him during the press meet, the anomalies, which are attempted to be made use of by the defence would not have come into being at all. But, at the same time, on the strength of the statement and the display of the currency notes made by D.W.3 during press interview, we are unable to disbelieve P.Ws.4 and 5. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.4 and 5 have stated the truth, whereas in order to take undeserved credit, D.W.3 had made such a contrary and incorrect statement to the press and media. The police had made certain manipulations at the time of press meet in an attempt to enhance the image of the Chennai City Police unduly. Thus, we hold from the evidences of P.W.28 and P.W.12 that a sum of rupees one crore was actually recovered by the police from A1 and A2. We also hold that some of the currency notes displayed at the time of press interview were not the currency notes actually recovered from the accused.
32. The next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the Finger Prints lifted from the Maruti Swift Dzire car bearing Regn. No.TN 48 (M.O.7). This was the car in which P.W.2 was concealed fromwhere he was rescued after paying ransom of rupees one crore on 01.11.2009. The said car was found abandoned at 'H' Block, 5th Street. On the request made by the investigating officer, P.W.24, the Finger Print Expert, went to the said place and thoroughly examined the car (M.O.7). At that time, the dickey door of the car was kept opened. P.W.24, commenced examining the car at 03.00 p.m. on 02.11.2010. He found a chance finger print on the centre rear view mirror [inside the car] and another finger print on the left, inner side of the front door. P.W.24, developed the same and took photographs. Later, after the arrest of accused, the finger prints of the accused were obtained and they were compared with the chance finger prints lifted from the car (M.O.7). The admitted left thumb impression of A1 tallied with the chance finger print lifted from the centre rear view mirror [inside the car] and the admitted finger print of right middle finger of A2 tallied with the chance finger print lifted from the inner side of the left front door. Ex.P.35 is his report.
33. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.W.24 would go to show that P.W.24 had not followed the scientific methods available for comparison of the disputed finger prints with the admitted finger prints. But, we find no force at all in the said argument. P.W.24 has given the reasons for his opinion. He gave opinion by comparing bifurcations, enclosures, short ridges, islands, dots, cross overs or bridges, deltas and other relevant factors. Though this witness has been cross examined, at length, we find nothing in favour of the accused so as to doubt the opinion offered by P.W.24.
34. The learned senior counsel would point out that in Page 17 to 31 in Ex.P.35, the so-called admitted finger prints of these accused are found. He would submit that there is no evidence as to who took these finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison. In effect, his argument is that these finger prints contained in Page 17 to 31 in Ex.P.35 were not at all taken from these two accused. This argument, in our considered view, has no basis at all. A close reading of the entire cross examination of P.W.24 made by the accused would go to show that they have not at all denied the sample finger prints taken from them which are contained in page 17 to 31 in Ex.P.35. If there has been any dispute in respect of the said fact, this court may look for the evidence of the person who took the admitted finger prints of the accused for the purpose of comparison. In the light of the fact the accused have not denied that the finger prints contained in page 17 to 31 in Ex.P.35 were taken from them, it is too late in the day for the learned senior counsel to contend that these finger prints were not at all taken from the accused. Therefore, we reject the argument of the defence counsel. From the evidence of P.W.24, we hold that the chance finger prints of these two accused were found in the car (M.O.7) from which P.W.2 was rescued. This would go to prove that these two accused handled the said car. There is absolutely no explanation from the accused as to how their finger prints came to be available in the car (M.O.7). This is yet another incriminating circumstance against A1 and A2 to prove that the car (M.O.7) from which P.W.2 was rescued was handled by A1 and A2.
35. The next circumstance is regarding the ownership of the car (M.O.7) bearing TN 48 L 6460. P.W.19's evidence assumes much importance in this regard. He was working in a company known as "Mercurio Pallia Logistics". His job was to unload the new cars which were delivered to the said company. According to him, on 23.11.2009, few new cars were consigned from Gurgaon through lorry No.HR 55 B 9627. On 05.12.2009, some cars were unloaded at Indus Cars near Poonamallee and they were parked outside the yard. One of the cars so parked was later on found missing. In this regard, P.W.19 made a complaint before T-12,Poonamallee Police Station upon which a case was registered in Crime No.905 of 2009. The chassis and engine numbers were also furnished by him in the said complaint. But, the said car was not at all registered. After the seizure of the car (M.O.7) it came to light that it was the said stolen car. But, the stolen car which was, in fact, not registered was carrying number plates with the registration number TN 48 L 6460. P.W.20 has stated that he was running an establishment under the name and style of "US Sign Boards" at Anna Nagar. He used to make number plates and sell the same on orders. He has stated that A1 and A2 were already known to him. They came to him and placed an order for making number plates for Maruti Swift Dzire car. They wanted him to make number plates carrying TN 48 L 6460. He, accordingly, made ready the number plates found on the stolen car (M.O.7). P.W.21, the Personal Assistant to the Regional Transport Officer, Trichy, has stated that the registration number TN 48 L 6460 related to a Yamaha motor cycle and the same stood in the name of one Mr.C.Udhayakumar of Trichy. Thus, according to him, the registration number TN 48 L 6460 was not at all allotted to any Maruti Swift Dzire car. From these evidences, it has been clearly established that the car (M.O.7) was stolen from outside the card yard at Poonamallee, fake number plates were made ready by these accused by placing orders on P.W.21 and with that fake number plates, A1 and A2 had used the car for the commission of the crime. We do not find any reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.19, 20 and 21 in this regard. More particularly, the evidence of P.W.20 connects A1 and A2 with the car (M.O.7). These witnesses have been, of course, cross examined at length, but, nothing could be elicited to discredit them. From these evidences, the prosecution has established that the car (M.O.7), from which P.W.2 was rescued, was in the possession of A1 and A2 which, either they had stolen from the possession of P.W.19 or had received the stolen car. We make it clear that it is not for us to express any opinion as to whether the said car (M.O.7) was actually stolen by A1 and A2 or not. It is suffice for us to hold that the said stolen car was in the possession of A1 and A2 in which they carried and concealed P.W.2 in the dickey from where he was rescued by P.Ws.4 and 5.
36. The next circumstances is the possession of the key of the Tavera Car-M.O.3. According to the case of the prosecution, the Tavera Car (M.O.4) was stolen away by these two accused with P.W.2 and later on, the car was found abandoned near Sivan Koil at Padi, Chennai. But, the door of the car was found locked. It was only with the duplicate key in the possession of P.W.4, the car was opened and then it was recovered by the police. The original key of the car was not found in the car. The said key was recovered from the possession of A1 on 10.11.2010 under the mahazar (Ex.P.17) on his disclosure statement [Ex.P.16]. He has got no explanation for the same. This is yet another important circumstances to prove the guilt of these accused.
37. Similarly, the Maruti Swift Dzire car(M.O.7) was abandoned at the place where the ransom amount was received by these two accused. They opened the dickey of the car only by means of a remote while standing near the motor cycle. The Dickey of the Maruti Swift Dzire Car was kept opened till the arrival of the police. There was no more key available in the car. The car key with remote (M.O.14) belonged to Maruti Swift Dzire car (M.O.7) was recovered from A2 on 10.11.2010 under the mahazar (Ex.P.18) on his disclosure statement. He has got no explanation to offer regarding the possession of the said key. This is also yet another strong circumstance against these accused to prove the guilt against them.
38. Then comes the conduct of the accused. According to P.Ws.4 and 5, two persons were standing near the motor cycle wearing helmets to whom, they paid the ransom amount of rupees one crore. After having received the ransom amount, they fled away from the scene of occurrence in the motor cycle. Since, the number plate was covered by a paper pasted on the same, they could not notice the registration number of the motor cycle.
39. P.W.6 has stated that after having received the ransom amount from P.W.5, these two accused tried to flee away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.6 attempted to catch them, but, they drove away the motor cycle in a high speed and disappeared from the said place. At that time, the paper stuck on the rear number plate fell down thereby exposing the registration number of the motor cycle. It was TN 02 T 2288. P.W.6 informed the same to P.W.4 and he in turn informed the same to the police. P.W.28 thereafter verified the ownership of the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 02 T 2288. It stood in the name of one Mr.Vijay Son of Ramaraj, No.252/7 Pioneer Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai. P.W.28 went to the said house and found the same locked. There was nobody in the house.
40. On 02.11.2010 around 09.00 p.m. one Mr.Ravi came to the police station and made a complaint alleging that two persons came in the motor cycle bearing Regn. NO.TN 02 T 2288 dashed against him in an attempt to kill him. Though people gathered there tried to catch them hold they escaped from the place of occurrence. Since the registration number of the motor cycle which hit Mr.Ravi and the motor cycle which was used by these two accused at the time when they received the ransom amount were one and the same , P.W.28 took further steps to arrest the accused. On 03.11.2008 at 08.00 a.m. at 100 feet road, these two accused were found moving in the said motor cycle bearing Regn. NO.TN 02 T 2288. That was how they were intercepted and arrested. The said motor cycle was then seized from the accused. From the evidence of P.W.6 it has been clearly established that the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 02 T 2288 (M.O.8) was the one which was used by these accused at the time when they received ransom amount. The said motor cycle admittedly stands in the name of A2, according to P.W.28. This is yet another strong circumstance against A1 and A2 to prove their guilt.
41. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, referring to the evidence of D.W.2, would submit that that A2 was already known to P.W.4 in connection with some business transaction and because of the business rivalry, these two accused have been falsely implicated. D.W.2 has further stated that these two accused were taken into custody by the police on 02.11.2010 itself. He has also stated about the good characters of these accused. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, these two accused are innocent. In this regard, we have to state that under Section 53 of the Evidence Act in criminal proceedings the fact that the accused is of good character is relevant. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 that A1 and A2 had good characters has been admitted. But, at the same time, as per Section 54 of the Evidence Act, in criminal proceedings the fact that the accused had bad character is irrelevant unless evidence has been given that he has the good character in which case it becomes relevant. In the instant case, since D.W.2 has spoken about the good characters of these two accused, their bad characters also become relevant. We have already discussed elaborately about the fact that these two accused had either committed theft of an unregistered Maruti Swift Dzire car or received the stolen car and prepared a fake number plate for the same and they had also obtained SIM card in the name of a fictitious person by creating forged documents. These bad characters of the accused are relevant and they would also further strengthen the case of the prosecution. Though it is alleged by D.W.2 that these two accused were taken into custody by the police on 02.11.2010 at 01.30 p.m., we find it difficult to accept the same. Similarly, the evidence of D.W.2 that due to business rivalry, these two accused have been falsely implicated also cannot be believed in view of the overwhelming evidence available to prove the guilt of these two accused. It is inferable that with a view to get these accused from the clutches of law, D.W.2 has made such a statement which is not true. Thus the evidence of D.W.2 is rejected.
42. From these circumstances which stand proved about which we have thus far discussed, we find that the prosecution has clinchingly proved that it was these two accused who kidnapped P.W.2 for ransom and criminally intimidated P.Ws.1 and 2 with dire consequences.
43. Now turning to the quantum of punishment, D.W.1 has stated that his son, A2 secured a degree in Bachelor's of Engineering in India and then secured a degree in MBA from a university in United Kingdom; Then, he [A2] was working there in a company for a fabulous salary; He returned back to India only with a view to start a business; A1 [sister's son of D.W.1] after completing his diploma course was working in a company in Singapore; He also returned back to India to join with A2 in the proposed business. It is not in evidence that they have got any bad antecedents. There are lot of chances for their reformation. There is no evidence that they were involved in any other crime either before or after the present case occurrence. They are of tender age. Having regard to all these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, in our considered view, imprisonment for life which is the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 364-A of IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/- each would meet the ends of justice. So far as the sentence with respect to offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, the trial court itself has imposed only lesser punishment and so the same needs to be confirmed.
44.0. Before concluding, we would like to state the following. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparancy of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Government and their Instrumentalities accountable to the governed. [See the short title to The Right to Information Act, 2005]. The parliament further cautions that revelation of some information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests. Preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information is also absolutely necessary,. While harmonizing these two conflicting interest, in Section 7 of the Act, the Act has stated that there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. "Is this provision followed?"
44.1. The United States Department of Justice has published a manual, known as "U.S.Attorney's Mannual" wherein "Media Realtions" is dealt with in para 1-7-000. It contains guidelines governing the release of information relating to criminal cases. It recognizes the need for limited confidentiality in ongoing operations and investigations, certain investigative techniques and other matters protected by the law. It states, "Press Conferences should be held only for the most significant and newsworthy actions or if a particular important deterrent or law enforcement purpose would be served. Prudence and caution should be exercised in the conduct of any press conference or other media conduct. Particular care must be taken to avoid any statement or presentation that would prejudice the fairness of any subsequent legal proceeding. At no time shall any personnel furnish any statement or information that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
44.2. In the present day context, in Indian scenario, application of these guidelines, in our considered view, will be in the best interest of the society. The case on hand is a classic example as to how the press conference held by the Commissioner of Police and making statement on the basis of misinformation has caused unnecessary hardship for the prosecution at the time of trial. We are hopeful that in the years to come, these best practices adopted in United States may be taken note of by the police in this State. We remind the police of their duty to follow section 7of the Right to Information Act and Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
44.3. We are conscious of the fact that Freedom of Press is an important and indispensable feature of our democracy. We earnestly respect the freedom of the press. We only request the print and electronic media to think twice before reporting any information in connection with a mater under investigation by the police to ensure that such reporting does not impede the process of investigation in any manner. Let us remain optimistic.
45. Before parting with this case, we would like to place on record our deep appreciation for the excellent assistance rendered by the learned State Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Shanmughavelayudham; Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr.M.Maharaja; and the learned senior counsel Mr.N.R.Elango.
46. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/A1 and A2 are hereby confirmed.
It is directed that the sentences imposed above shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the appellants/A1 and A2 shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Since it is reported that the appellants/A1 and A2 are on bail, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, shall take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the appellant/A1 and A2 and to commit them in prison so as to serve the sentences imposed on them by the trial court and as confirmed by this court.
Index : yes. [S.N.J.,.] [V.B.D.J,.]
Internet : yes. 31..08..2016
kmk
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram
District.
2.The Inspector of Police, J.J.Nagar Police Station, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU. J,.
and
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J,.
kmk
Pre delivery Judgement
in
Crl.A.No.296 of 2015
31..08..2016
*****