Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. P.W.1 and her husband Manoharan (since deceased) are the parents of Kannan, who is the unfortunate victim in the case on hand. According to her, her son studying in fourth standard in a Matriculation School near her house was left in the school at 9.00 a.m. on 16.10.2003 by her and he did not return home in the evening. He informs her husband Manoharan about their son not coming back home after school hours. Enquiries were made and since no useful information was forthcoming, P.W.1's husband went to the police station and gave the complaint. On the next day, when P.W.1 was in her house, P.W.3 came home and told P.W.1 and her husband that on the previous day he noticed around 4.30 p.m. opposite to the school, in which Kannan was studying, two persons  one tall and the other with a fair complexion took Kannan in a TVS 50 motor cycle by making him sit in between the two. P.W.3 also told P.W.1 and her husband that as he was under the impression that both the persons may be the relatives of P.W.1's family he did not take serious note of Kannan being taken by two persons on the previous evening. P.W.3 also told P.W.1 that as he came to know only on the next day that P.W.1's son is missing, he though it fit to give the details of what he saw on the previous evening. Immediately, P.W.1's husband went to the police station and gives a statement containing that information. On the 18th of that month, namely, the third day after the incident, P.W.9 came home and told P.W.1 and her husband as here under:

10. P.W.5 saw, in the lands of Sundaram, both the accused sitting and talking with an young boy and he saw the dead body of the boy only on its exhumation. P.W.9's husband is one of the partners of Malar Matriculation School, where Kannan was studying. There is a telephone in her house with the indicator number 233068. She had stated that at 8.00 a.m. on 18.10.2003, there was an incoming call to her house where the caller stated that he is speaking from Chennai. Immediately, the line got disconnected. Forty five minutes later, again there was an incoming call and the caller once again said that he is calling from Chennai and that he had kidnapped Kannan from Malar Matriculation School and they wanted to talk to Manoharan, father of Kannan, and therefore requested P.W.9 to get Manoharan immediately by the phone. P.W.9 passed on this information to P.W.1 and her husband and accordingly, Manoharan came to her house at 11.00 a.m. There was a call and the caller wanted the phone to be given to Manoharan and accordingly Manoharan talked on the telephone. After the call, when P.W.9 asked Manoharan as to what it is about, Manoharan said that the caller is demanding a ransom of Rs.4 lakhs for releasing his son. As they wanted to call at 5.00 p.m., Manoharan had given the telephone available in the house of Vikramadityan, which is close to his house. P.W.10 is Vikramadityan, in whose house, there is a telephone with the indicator number 252995. There was a call to his telephone number on 18.10.2003 around 6.00 p.m. and the caller said that he is speaking from Chennai and he wanted to talk to Manoharan, his neighbour. Asking the caller to call again in ten minutes, P.W.10 brought Manoharan to his house and again the telephone came. P.W.10 handed over the phone to Manoharan and Manoharan conversed on the telephone and thereafter Manoharan told this witness that the kidnappers wanted a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and that Manoharan negotiated for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, which was refused by the kidnappers. Manoharan also told P.W.10 that the kidnappers would again call on the next day. On the afternoon of 19.10.2003, there was again a telephone call and therefore, P.W.10 sent word to Manoharan and Manoharan accordingly reached P.W.10's house at 2.00 p.m. There was a call at 3.00 p.m. and the caller said that he is speaking from Chennai and therefore P.W.10 gave the telephone to Manoharan and as Manoharan wanted the caller to give the phone to his son, the line got disconnected. P.W.10 came to know that the accused were arrested.

14. Now let us analyse the materials on the kidnapping of Kannan; his murder later on; screening of the evidence and then the exhumation. Before going into that, we will say at this stage that the prosecution had definitely established that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 speaks to the involvement of the accused in committing the crime. We have already extracted the evidence of P.W.3, which shows that on the evening of 16.10.2003, he saw the second accused bringing Kannan from the school; A1 was already in his motor cycle; Kannan was made to sit in the motor cycle and then the second accused also took his seat in the motor cycle and then the motor cycle went towards the town. Of course, he had admitted in his evidence in cross that he had not seen the accused earlier. But there is one fact, the fact being that on the fourth day after Kannan was kidnapped, the accused were apprehended and this witness saw them in the police station and identified them and that is the evidence of P.W.22 as well. This witness was examined in Court on 12.7.2004, hardly within 8 months from the date on which the crime was committed. This witness was very firm in Court that the accused present in Court alone kidnapped the victim. On his capacity to identify the accused in the police station and in Court, we find very little cross examination. In fact, no worth mentioning cross examination had been done at all on the evidence of P.W.2 that on the occurrence day evening, he saw A2 bringing the child to the motor cycle and then as stated earlier, both the accused leaving together in the motor cycle having Kannan seated in between them. Then we have the evidence of P.W.4, who is none less than the maternal uncle of A1. We have already extracted his evidence in the earlier portion of this judgment, which definintely shows that the accused was keen to know from whom P.W.4 borrowed money and as the first accused was under pressure to repay the money, they wanted P.W.4 to point out the house of Manoharan, which he pointed out. P.W.4's evidence also shows that on 17.10.2003, the first accused orally confessed to him about his involvement and the involvement of the second accused in kidnapping the victim. P.W.4 had given explanation as to why he passed on that information to the police only on 18th and we are fully satisfied with that explanation. Once again we will have to state that very little cross examination has been done on this witness. We must note that this witness is a blood relation of A1 and when he had stood strong in his evidence about the involvement of A1 and A2 in the crime, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve him. Accordingly, we believe the evidence of P.W.4 also. Then we have the evidence of P.W.5. He had seen both the accused sitting and chatting with a young boy in the lands of which A1's father is shown to be the lessee. We have to again state that this witness also had not been cross examined on material aspects. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 establish the fact, namely, A1 and A2 kidnapped Kannan from the school; A1 orally confessed on the next day of the crime that he and A2 had kidnapped the victim and kannan, the abducted was last seen alive in the company of A1 and A2. Kannan was studying in Malar Matriculation School as spoken to by his class teacher P.W.6 and the Partner cum Secretary of the said School, P.W.7. M.Os. 1, 2 and 3 are the shirt, trouser and belt, which was found on the dead body on its exhumation and P.W.6 told that M.Os. 1 and 2 are their school uniform and in the buckle of M.O.3, their school logo is found. P.W.6 also stated that Kannan, who left the school at 4.00 p.m. on 16.10.2003 was not to be seen thereafter and Manoharan enquired them about his son. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 completes the sequence of events as spoken to by P.Ws. 3 to 5.