In a criminal appeal against acquittal in kidnapping and robbery, the High Court examined if the acquittal was perverse. Finding gaps in evidence, delay in filing complaint, and lack of corroboration, the court upheld the acquittal.
The criminal appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.396/2018 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION CHINTAMANI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001 …APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOWMYA R, HCGP)
AND:
Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT PLOT NO.103 VIJAYAPURI COLONY, PHASE-I VANASTHALAPURAM, HYDERABAD HOME TOWN: KOTHTHACHERUVU VILLAGE, ANANTAPURA DISTRICT – 515 001
AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT MUBBUCHINTAPALLI VILLAGE VEMALA MANDAL, CUDDAPAH DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH – 516 002
PRESENT ADDRESS:
TANK BUND ROAD, CHINTAMANI-563125
(BY SMT.TEJASWINI.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7; APPEAL AGAINST R1 AND 2 IS ABATED V/O DATED 27.06.2024)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
NO.112/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTHAMANI), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 341, 364(a),323, 114 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
“Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura (Sitting at Chintamani) in S.C.No.112/2012 suffers patent illegality or perversity?” is the question involved in this case.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That accused No.1 had given huge amount of money to
PW.1 as brokerage for purchasing land bearing Sy.No.43/3 of Guvvalagayanahalli. In that transaction, PW.1 cheated accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 with other accused conspired to kidnap PW.1 and get back the said money from PW.1. Accused Nos.5 and 6 abetted other accused to commit such offence. In execution of such conspiracy, accused forming themselves an unlawful assembly, on 31.10.2009 at 11:00 p.m., accused No.6 in the guise of dropping PW.1 to Bengaluru Airport, took PW.1 in his Omni Car. When the Car was proceeding near Nayindrahalli gate within the limits of Chintamani Rural Police Station, other accused came in TATA SUMO bearing registration No.AP-25 and Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.K.A.03MK-1876 and kidnapped PW.1 in that car. From there, he was taken near Balaji Choultry of Pulivendalu village, there accused broke the suitcase of PW.1 and robbed cash of Rs.3,25,000/-, neck chain and two gold finger rings. From that place, they took him to farmhouse of accused No.4 situated in Nallappareddigaripalli and held him hostage. Accused No.4 snatched the phone of PW.1, called PW.4 the wife of PW.1 and demanded for ransom of Rs.25.00 lakhs and not to file
complaint. Accused learning about PW.4 filing police complaint in Chintamani police station, shifted PW.1 to a shed situated in the farm of one Nayadappa of Guntapura. On the fifth day, when all the accused were intoxicated, PW.1 offering his finger ring to a farm servant, escaped and reached Battalapalli police station, who in turn informed Chintamani police. Then PW.8, who by that time had registered FIR on complaint of PW.4, went to Battalapalli police station and brought back PW.1 to Chintamani police station. On the basis of his statement, mahazar was conducted at the place from where PW.1 was kidnapped and places where he was held hostage. Swift car allegedly used in the commission of the offence was seized. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and chargesheet was filed.
Smt.Sowmya R, learned HCGP submits that PW.1-the victim, PW.3-eyewitness and PW.4-complainant have unequivocally supported the prosecution case. But the Trial Court ignoring their evidence, acquitted the accused on technical ground of delay in filing the complaint and regarding the statements etc., which is unsustainable. She submits that the evidence of PW.1victim should have been given a due credence. Hence, she seeks reversal of acquittal judgment and conviction of the accused.
overcome his liability towards accused No.1. Hence she seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis:
following facts:
1(2013) 14 SCC 88
(iii) Evidence of eyewitness-PW.3;
(iv) Recovery of car used in the commission of the
offence; and
(v) Evidence of PW4, panch witnesses and other official
witnesses.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
complainant party to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, unless there is other corroborating evidence, conviction cannot be based on motive circumstance alone.
records were seized or produced to show that PW.9 owns such car. PW.9 did not support the prosecution version.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
owner. As per the evidence of PW.7, he took over the investigation from PW.8 on 22.01.2010. PW.7 claims that on 21.07.2010 accused No.2 surrendered before him along with the car bearing registration No.K.A-03-MK-1876 and that was seized under mahazar Ex.P5. Though according to PW.7, the car was seized in the presence of PW.6, PW.6 in his crossexamination states that, by the time he went to the police station, car was already parked there. He says that he does not know who brought the car to the police station and he was told that some Andhra people parked the car there. He further states that he signed on the mahazar Ex.P5 at the instance of the police and the police stated to him that they have written the mahazar regarding kidnapping of PW.1.
chargesheet witness. Thereby the link that PW.1 was kidnapped in the said car, was broken.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
03.11.2009 at 11.55 am. The delay in filing the complaint was not satisfactorily explained. According to the complaint, it was CW-3 who informed PW-4 about the incident. Therefore, evidence of PW-3 becomes shaky and creates doubt about he being the eye witness. Though there was no whisper in Ex.P4 about PW-3, PW-4 before the Court improving her version states that before she reached the police station to file the complaint, at the bus stand, PW-3 informed her about the incident, but no mention to that effect was found in the complaint. According to PW-4, she filed the police complaint after the kidnappers informed her over the phone and demanded Rs.20,00,000/- as ransom. But in complaint Ex.P4 there is no whisper about kidnappers calling her and demanding Rs.20,00,000/- for release of PW-1. She only stated that CW-3 informed her about the kidnapping of PW-1. No call detail records were collected to show what were the phone numbers of PWs-1 and 4. In complaint Ex.P4 there was no whisper about PW.1 carrying cash of Rs.3,25,000/- or wearing any gold ornaments. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that PW-3 was planted witness.
NC: 2024:KHC:26916-DB CRL.A No.396/2018
necessary for the investigating officers to collect any records of the said police station and to cite the witnesses of the said police station to prove the said aspect which was not done. There is no explanation by the investigating officers for such lapse. Due to the same, the fact of PW-1 escaping from the culprits and reaching Battalapalli police station and from there Chintamani Police tracing him, itself becomes doubtful. It also goes difficult to accept that if a person appears in the police station reporting cognizable offence, the SHO of the said police station does not record the same in their station house diary and do not give any written communication to the jurisdictional police.
jewelleries. During the investigation, those articles were not recovered. Not even an effort was made to recover them. Further, though PW-1 claims that he escaped from the hands of the culprits with the help of one farm servant, no investigation was conducted to find out who was that person. Though mahazar Ex.P2 is said to have been conducted, even the owner of the alleged shed was not cited as the charge sheet witness.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PKN,ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers patent illegality or perversity?
Whether there was patent illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
Is the appeal sustainable on the facts and evidence on record?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prem SinghExplained¶52
Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana
10 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE STATION CHINTAMANI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BASAPPA CHOWDARI
D.V.CHALAPATHI NAIDU
JANARDAN REDDY
K VENKATAKRISHNAREDDY
R NARASIMHANAIDU
K.S.MUDAGAL
VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
