Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. We have gone through the oral testimony of PW4. What is spoken by PW4 that he was taken into an auto-rikshaw from Sreekariyam Junction by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 has its own  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, improbability and inconsistency by its nature. Even PW4 had admitted that he was taken to an auto-rikshaw by force from a public road. At that time, three of his friends (CW3 to CW5) were present. Admittedly, he did not make any attempt to escape from the custody of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and did not make any resistance or an attempt to attract the attention of his three friends who were present at that time. Then he was taken to a nearby school compound (Kattil L.P. School) and accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 along with the auto driver manhandled him by beating and stamping. By that time, three persons came there in a bike. It is seemed to be so strange that PW4 mentioned their names as Shyju, Suresh and another Suresh, but admitted that they are not known to him. We are in darkness how it is possible for a person to mention the name of three assailants who are not known to him. PW4 had even gone to the extent of stating that he could not identify those three persons. If that be so, it is not clear how he came to know about the name of those three persons. Further version given by him seemed to be highly improbable that they took away his gold chain and two gold rings  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, by force. It is true that it happened by 8.30 p.m. It is not stated by him how he had identified or came to know about the name of those three assailants as Shyju, Suresh and another Suresh, if he was not in a position to even identify those persons by sight. This would take away the entire version given by PW4. It is a clear indication that he is trying to develop a story that three persons had taken away his gold ornaments in the same transaction. Inconsistency and improbability is writ large on its face.

6. It is highly improbable that why he had not resisted the act of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and other accused either at the time when he was forcibly taken to the auto-rikshaw from a public road and when he was in the school compound. Admittedly, there are residential houses situated near to the L.P. School. He had not made any cry or any attempt for getting the help of others either at the time of abduction or during the course of transport or at the time when he was taken to the School. He did not offer any resistance. He did not have any case that at that time they were armed with any weapon like sword, knife etc  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, and no such case was advanced by him while he was in the box as PW4. Then he was taken to a telephone booth and caused him to intimate the demand for ransom of Rs.50,000/- to his house by the accused. Even at that time he did not make any resistance. It is thereafter the auto driver along with Padmakumar went to the house of the victim. By that time he was taken near to the water tank situated near to the Kolathukara Temple. He had seen the flying squad of the police at that place, but he did not make any attempt to attract the attention of the flying squad or sought any help from the flying squad. The explanation given by him that the accused had shown a sword to him and threatened him not to make any noise, thereafter they jumped over the compound wall of a house and went to the railway line, seemed to be so strange. The victim along with the accused jumped over the compound wall of a house, but he did not make any attempt to run away from the accused, but joined hand with the accused for jumping over the compound wall. It is also not clear why he did not offer any resistance from jumping over the compound wall of a house and  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, why he did not make any attempt to escape from the accused even at that time. Thereafter the victim along with two other persons proceeded towards S.N. Library and went to a vacant house. Thereafter by 2.00 to 2.30 a.m they proceeded towards a canal, then proceeded through paddy field for a distance of 8 kms and came near to Gurumandiram by 7.00 a.m. He was released at that time by Dileep by giving him an amount of Rs.10/-. Immediately he got a ride to the Medical College Hospital in an ambulance and was admitted there. With the permission of Doctor, he went to the Medical College Police Station and had seen the auto driver and Padmakumar in the Police Station. This portion of the oral evidence tendered by PW4 is totally against and inconsistent with the version given by PW1, his father, and PW13, his mother, who are in agreement that on the next day by 6.30 a.m. the victim, PW4, came back to their house. PW4 did not have any such case. On the other hand, according to him, after the release, he immediately proceeded to the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum, in an ambulance and alighted at Ullur Junction and then proceeded to the Medical college Hospital  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, and admitted there and had undergone treatment for three days. It is totally inconsistent with the version given by PW1 father and PW13 mother.

7. Even in the chief examination two inconsistent versions were given by PW4 stating that the auto driver has also joined with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and attacked and manhandled him and at the same time it is stated that the auto driver did not join with the other accused or make any attack on him, but remained in the auto-rikshaw.

8. Further, very serious material omissions were brought out at the time of cross examination of PW4. It appears from a strict scrutiny of the oral evidence of PW4 that he did not offer any resistance at any point of time during the different stages of abduction, though several opportunities were available to him. Hence, we are of the considered view that what is spoken by PW4 is highly fishy, shrouded by improbabilities and inconsistencies and no reliance can be placed on it. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of guilt of accused under Sections 364A, 392 and 342 IPC and the conviction and sentence thereunder are liable to  Crl.Appeal Nos.1664/13, be set aside and we do so. No offence has been made out against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and hence they are acquitted.