Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. It is relevant to state that the prosecution has produced the call details pertaining to mobile phone of PW.2 (father of the deceased) so also of the deceased Thushar, which are marked as per Ex.P101 and Ex.P108. The entries made in Ex.P108 reveal that mobile no.8095602949 belong to the deceased. The mobile numbers of the complainant and the deceased found in the complaint. The numbers mentioned in Ex.P2 tally with the numbers found in Ex.P101 and Ex.P108.

34. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had been kidnapped by Accused Nos.3 and 4 at the instance of Accused Nos.1 and 2. While recording the statement of the accused under the provisions of Section-313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Accused Nos.3 and 4 have disclosed that on 14.1.2011 two boys teased them in the Esteem Hall and hence they left the Mall, but when once again they went to the Mall, they have been apprehended by the Police. Under the circumstances, nothing prevented the accused Nos.3 and 4 to file a complaint against those two boys about teasing and bring it to the notice of the Security Guards available at the spot. But, the same has not been done, thereby the contention of the accused cannot be believed. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.11 coupled with Ex.P47/Esteem Mall CD and Ex.P66/print out of SMS and seizure of mobile phone of the deceased from the Accused No.2 clearly support the case of the prosecution about the kidnap of the deceased by the accused.

35. The oral and documentary evidence clearly depict that Accused Nos.2 to 4 are residing in the same house at Attur layout. The presence of Accused No.1 is also proved since the prosecution able to prove the seizure of the clothes and the lodge receipt in the said house. Further, the Manager of the Lodge viz., Nagaraju/ PW.13 has deposed that on 17.1.2011 Accused No.1 stayed in their lodge in Room No.306 and that Accused No.2 was also often and often visiting the said room and he identified both the accused before the Court. If Accused No.1 is not having any nexus with Accused No.2, what was the necessity of his presence with Accused No.1 in that room, is not explained by the defence in the evidence. PW.13 - Nagaraju further disclosed about the drawing of the mahazar in the Lodge on 21.1.2011 and seizure of duplicate copy of the receipt and copy of the lodge extract. He further deposed that on 21.1.2011 the Police have brought accused No.2 to the said Lodge. The admissions of PW.13 further strengthen the case of the prosecution about the kidnap of the deceased by the accused with a pre-plan to demand ransom money. The mobile of the deceased Thushar was seized from the custody of Accused No.2. Such being the case, it is clear that Accused No.2 himself has telephoned to the father of the deceased (PW.2) demanding Rs.10 lacs, thereby the defence of the learned counsel for the accused that there is absolutely no motive for the crime cannot be accepted. Mere non seizure of the black bag/MO.10 from Accused No.2 is also not fatal to the case of the prosecution since the other material evidence is available on record to prove the arrest of Accused No.2 in the Railway station. The material on record clearly depicts that the charge framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 302, 201 and 120B r/w section 34 IPC and the abundant material evidence available on record against the Accused No.2.

36. Based on the material available on record, the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused persons about kidnap of the deceased by Accused Nos.3 and 4 and later on his abduction in the house of Accused Nos.2 and 3 and absolutely there is no counter evidence to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. From the date of kidnap and abduction till the date of trace out of the dead body by the Investigating Officer at the instance of Accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased was found somewhere else for which none of the accused have any connection. Therefore, the Court has to believe the evidence of kidnapping of the deceased by the accused and the accused only.