Bettari Srinivas A1 vs State Of Telangana

These two appeals are filed by the appellants aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.11.2015 in S.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Medak. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 (A.1 and A.2) respectively in the said Sessions Case. By judgment dated 24.11.2015, the trial Judge, convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

As both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

The case of the prosecution before the trial Court is that on 26.08.2014 at 18.30 hours, the complainant Shenigeri Sangaiah filed a written complaint stating that his elder son Mallesham and younger son Suresh were studying in ZPHS and CPS, Shankarampet-A village, respectively and on 26.08.2014 both his sons went to School and after completion of school when Mallesham went to CPS School to bring his brother Suresh, he noticed that his brother was missing. As such, he searched for him in all probable places and later informed the same to him.

To prove the case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. Basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused as stated supra.

Heard Smt G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 in Crl.A.No.824 of 2017, Sri Shaik Karimulla, learned counsel for the appellant/A.2 in Crl.A.No.1117 of 2015 and Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1117 of 2015 would submit that the trial Court grossly erred in relying on the evidence of interested testimonies of Pws.1 to 4 and that this appellant has no role in the alleged offence. The evidence available on record is not sufficient to hold A.2 as guilty and the demand for lump sum is made only by A.1. Therefore, this appellant is no way concerned with the offence and prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court by acquitting this appellant/A.2.

Learned counsel for the Appellant No.1/A.1 in Crl.A.No.824 of 2017 would submit that the learned trial Judge should have seen the ingredients to constitute the offences are not proved by any legal and reliable evidence for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 of IPC and relying on the evidence of interested testimonies, wrongly convicted A.1 and the evidence of Pw.3 and other circumstances clearly shows that Pw.4 the alleged victim was not detained in the house of Pw.3. Therefore, prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of trial Court by acquitting the appellant No.1.

Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants/A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sections 364-A and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

To prove the case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. Pw.1 is the complainant and father of Pw.4-victim. He deposed that his elder son used to pick up his younger son from his school on his cycle. A.1 is a distant relative and A.2 is friend of A.1 and he has no acquaintance with him. On the date of incident, his younger son went to School and when his elder son went to the school of victim, he noticed his brother was missing and his elder son informed the same to him through phone. On knowing the same, he rushed to school and searched for him and thereafter gave complaint to the police under Ex.P.1. Three days thereafter he received phone call from A.1 demanding him to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, otherwise he would kill his younger son. Again he gave representation to the police and two days thereafter, A.1 telephoned him to get money to Annasagar Bund and police caught the accused along with his son and auto.

Pw.2 is a RMP doctor and he deposed that about seven months ago he received a phone call from Pw.1 stating that the kidnappers demanded him to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, and he accompanied Pw.1 to police station to lodge complaint.

Pw.3 deposed that she is the owner of house situated at Jagadgirigutta and she knows A.1. About seven months back, A.1 took her house on rent for two months. One day he brought a boy aged about 12 or 13 years and kept him inside the house and A.1 used to close the doors all the time and when they questioned about the boy, A.1 informed her that he was his nephew and third day morning he took away the boy.

Pw.4 is the victim who was kidnapped by A.1 and A.2. His evidence is that about seven months back when he was in the class, A.2 came and enquired about him, he came out along with him. Naresh who is also his classmate accompanied him up to the school gate and A.2 told him to stay there saying that they will go out and A.1 was waiting outside the school in the auto. They travelled some distance in the same auto and after some time, he questioned A.1 as to why he was carrying, A.1 replied that as there was no balance in phone, he would telephone his father after some time. A.1 took him in the auto stating that to celebrate his wife’s birthday who is his cousin by courtesy and at last they took him to Patancheru and kept him in old church on that night. Later Pw.4 was taken to Kukatpally in the same auto and he was kept in a room. A.1 and A.2 used to contact through phone outside the room and one day A.1 contacted his father from coin box phone and demanded his father to give Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay the same at Medak Church. As per directions of A.1 he too informed his father. On one occasion A.1 informed his father to come to Annasagar Bund. After reaching the Bund A.1 contacted his father and told him not to disclose the same to others and if he discloses, the victim will not survive. His father came to Annasagar Bund with police and caught the accused.

Pw.5 is panch for confession and recovery and basing on the confession of accused auto was seized. Pw.6 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed about investigation done by him. Pw.7 is the judicial officer who conducted Test Identification parade and according to him, Pw.4 identified the suspect by name Ramesh.

The trial Court convicted the appellants/A.1 and A.2 basing on the above evidence. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 to prove the accusations against the accused.

Going through the evidence of prosecution, it is seen that Pw.4 who is the victim in this case deposed that he knows A.1 who is his distant relative and on the date of incident, when he asked A.1, he stated that they are celebrating his wife’s birthday who is cousin by courtesy. Pw.4 was first taken to Patancheru and kept him in an old Church on that night and later he was taken to Kukatpally in the same auto, he was kept in a room and no where he has not alerted anybody. His further evidence is that A.1 contacted his father through coin box phone, which shows that he was not in detention in a closed room. Admittedly, A.1 and Pw.1 are relatives. The complaint given by Pw.1 on 26.08.2014 under Ex.P.1 itself shows that his son also spoke to him on phone from coin box phone, though Pw.1 stated unknown person, the evidence of Pw.4 shows that A.1 is relative of Pw.1 and Pw.3 in cross-examination admitted that they have to pass through A.1 portion to enter into their portion and toilets are outside the portion. Pw.3 also admitted that A.1 used to go to work leaving the boy in room shows that this boy is not detained. Really if he is detained in the room he would have raised hues and cries, but Pw.3 evidence does not show the same.

The evidence of Pw.6 who is the investigating officer is that on 01.09.2014, on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to Annasagar Bund and found the accused and boy along with an auto, they took them into custody and he recorded the confession statement of accused and seized the auto. Therefore, the said confession statement is no way useful as there is no recovery basing on confession.

The essential ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are :

i. The person concerned kidnaps or abducts or keep the victim in detention after kidnapping or abduction.

ii. Threatens to cause death or hurt or causes apprehension of death or hurt or actually hurts or causes death.

iii. The kidnapping, abduction or detention and threats of death or hurt, apprehension for such death or hurt or actual death or hurt is caused to coerce the person concerned or someone else to do something or to forbear from doing something or to pay ransom.

In the present case, the evidence on record proves that A.1 and A.2 took away Pw.4 from school and first he was kept in a Church and later in a private house, whereas, there is no evidence on record that A.1 or A.2 threatened or beat the victim. Further, the evidence of Pw.4 itself shows that he was not detained in a closed room and the evidence goes to show that A.1 used to go out for attending his work leaving the boy in the said house. Pw.4 evidence is also silent about any torture made by the A.1 or A.2. That apart, Pw.4 never tried to raise hue and cry or tried to escape from that house. Moreover, no ransom amount is paid to A.1 and A.2. There is no call data on record to prove that A.1 and A.2 called Pw.1 for ransom amount.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that the boy was detained and he was kidnapped for ransom. The evidence of Pw.4 itself is sufficient to show that he was not detained, that he was taken to Patancheru and from there to Kukatpally. That apart A.1 is relative of Pw.1. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 364-A of IPC. However, the evidence on record proves the offence under Section 363 of IPC but not Section 364-A of IPC. Accordingly, the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed and the judgment dated 24.11.2015 in S.C.No.28 of 2015 on the file of VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Medak is modified, finding the appellants not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC, while finding them guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and under Section 506 of IPC. However, as the appellants/accused are in jail since the date of conviction i.e., from 24.11.2015 almost more than eight years, the sentence imposed on them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants/accused be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case or crime. The Bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.