Telangana High Court
Tanuj Kumar Chennapati , Ranuj, Krishna ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 June, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 & 940 OF 2016,
603 OF 2022; 781,786, 881, 1193 & 943 OF 2016, 601 OF 2022;
779,788, 854, 1191 & 944 of 2016, 600 OF 2022, 946, 789, 795, 859
& 1189 OF 2016 AND 602 OF 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman) Heard Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pappu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.774, 779, 781 and 795 of 2016, Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.786, 787, 788 and 789 of 2016, Ms.V. Baby Rani, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.854, 858, 859 and 881 of 2016, Ms. Indira, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.1189, 1191, 1193 & 1195 of 2016 and Crl.A. Nos.600, 601, 602 and 603 of 2022 and Mr. M. Jayaram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.940, 943, 944 and 946 of 2016 and also Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
2. Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022 are filed by accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7, respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in S.C. No.484 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.100 of 2009 of Lalaguda Police Station), whereby and whereunder they were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A, 395 and 343 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section - 364A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section - 395 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section - 343 of IPC.
3. Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.483 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.224 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station), whereby and where-under they were convicted for the offences under Sections - 3
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch 364A and 395 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment respectively.
4. Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in S.C. No.481 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.69 of 2009 of Moghalpura Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions Judge, whereby and whereunder they were convicted for the aforesaid offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments respectively.
5. Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2016 is filed by the appellant - accused No.10 challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in S.C. No.296 of 2011 (arising out of Crime No.537 of 2009 of Rajendranagar Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions Judge, whereby and whereunder he was convicted for the aforesaid offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments, respectively.
4
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
6. Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859 and 1189 of 2016 and 602 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4 and 7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in S.C. No.295 of 2011 (arising out of Crime No.537 of 2009 of Rajendranagar Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions Judge, whereby and whereunder they were convicted for the aforesaid offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments, respectively.
7. The ranks of all the appellants in all the S.C. Nos.484, 483 and 481 of 2015, 296 and 295 of 2011 are one and the same. However, crime numbers and police stations are different as they committed the very same offences at different places and the victims are different viz., Crime No.100 of 2009 was registered by Lalaguda Police Station; Crime No.224 of 2009 was registered by Jubilee Hills Police Station; Crime No.69 of 2009 was registered by Moghalpura Police Station and Crime No.537 of 2009 was registered by Rajendranagar Police Station.
5
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
8. During pendency of the proceedings before the learned Sessions Court, accused No.1 died and, therefore the case against him stood abated. Similarly, during pendency of the appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.926, 927, 942 and 945 of 2016, accused No.9 died. Therefore, vide order dated 13.09.2023, this Court dismissed the said appeals against accused No.9 as abated. The case against accused No.8 was split up by learned Sessions Judge.
Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022:
9. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.100 of 2009 of Lalaguda Police Station arising out of S.C. No.484 of 2015 is as under:
i) PW.4 - Md. Akbar (de facto complainant) gave an oral complaint to Lalaguda Police on 16.05.2009 at about 1.00 A.M. stating that accused No.8 - Rahul and others abducted him along with his owner - Bhasker Goud (PW.1) from his house, confined them somewhere in Tarnaka and later in Jubilee Hills and robbed away their valuables and released him to bring demanded ransom amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from the family of his owner and his owner is still in the custody of kidnappers.6
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
ii) He further alleged that few days ago, PW.4 contacted accused No.8, who informed him that he (accused No.8) had a rice puller which is a very auspicious antique item and expressed his willingness to sell. Since the owner of PW.4 was in search of antique items, he informed him for which his owner agreed to purchase it and accordingly both of them contacted accused No.8 who agreed to show the item at his house situated at Railway Quarters, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. Therefore, PW.4 informed his owner to come to the house of Accused No.8 to see the item.
iii) When PWs.1 and 4 were waiting at the house of accused No.8 at about 11.00 A.M., accused No.8 along with his friend Mr. Srinivas Reddy, Venkatesh and Raju came to his house in a taxi and then PWs.1 and 4 asked them to show the item for proceeding with further transaction. They took them in their car to some house at Tarnaka to show the item and after entering into the said house, they beat them indiscriminately with sticks along with other person and demanded ransom amount to release them. They also snatched away gold ornaments and net cash of Rs.4.00 lakhs from PW.1 apart from his cell phone and camera. After three days, they were shifted in mid night to some other house at Jubilee Hills, where some more 7 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch kidnappers were there and all of them beat them black and blue and demanded ransom amount.
iv) On receipt of the said complaint, the police recorded the statement of PW.4 and registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2009 under Sections - 343, 364A and 395 of IPC and took up investigation.
v) During investigation, the police sent PW.4 to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, where he took the treatment as outpatient vide MLC No.15858. Thereafter, the police visited the scene of offence at Railway quarters, North Lalaguda and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and drawn rough sketch of scene. While so, the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station along with task force officials arrested accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime No.69 of 2009 and got released the victims including PW.1 from the clutches of offenders.
vi) During interrogation by the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station, accused Nos.2 to 7 alleged to have confessed the commission of offences along with their associates. The police seized one digital camera with charger from the possession of accused No.1 belonging to PW.4 and credit cards of Axis Bank and HDFC Bank from the possession of accused No.6 belonging to PW.1. 8
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
vii) After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet which was numbered as P.R.C. No.51 of 2011 of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, who later committed the same to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for trial and disposal. After committal, the same was made over to the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. However, as per the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2012 in Tran.Crl.P. No.54 of 2012, the said case was withdrawn from the Court of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge and made over to XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. While so, when the accused approached the District Judge for transfer of the said case by making certain allegations against the Presiding Officer of the said Court, the said case was again transferred to the Court of learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar to try along with other cases.
viii) During trial, PWs.1 to 10 were examined, Exs.P1 to P19 were marked and so also MOs.1 to 4 on behalf of the prosecution, whereas, none was examined on behalf of the accused, however, Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on their behalf.
9
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
ix) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on them in the manner stated above.
Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022:
10. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.224 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station arising out of S.C. No.483 of 2015 is as under:
i) On 16.05.2009 at about 3.00 A.M., de facto complainant -
PW.2 gave complaint with the Jubilee Hills Police alleging that he is a resident of Station Ghanpur village of Warangal District and doing real-estate business. About 2 years back, PW.2 came into contact with one Mr. Shivan (PW.1), native of Tamilnadu and also Mr. Shanjuman (LW.2), native of Kerala State during the course of real estate business.
ii) Since then, PW.1 was introducing lady customers to the said PW.1 - Shivan and he was getting brokerage charges. A few days prior to lodging the report, PW.2 also came into contact with accused No.7, a native of Eluru and Visakhapatnam and was doing real estate 10 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch business. In the month of April, 2009, accused No.7 called PW.2 and informed that he had 'Rice Puller', an auspicious antique item and informed that he intended to sell the same and requested PW.2 to search for needy customers. Then, PW.2 informed the same to PW.1, who informed him to come to Vizag. Accordingly, PW.2 and accused No.7 went to Visakhapatnam and met PW.1 and offered to sell the rice puller, on which PW.1 informed them that he would send his person to Hyderabad.
iii) On 09.05.2009 PW.1 sent his associate Shanjuman to Hyderabad. On 10.05.2009 at 10.00 A.M., PW.2 and Shanjuman visited Airport and received PW.1. In the meanwhile, accused No.7 and one Venkatesh came to Airport and met him at Airport. Accused No.7 and the said Venkatesh took them in a Scorpio Vehicle to a house at Jubilee Hills area on the pretext of showing the rice puller and while they were going on, PW.2 demanded to show the rice puller on which, accused No.7 and the said Venkatesh forcibly took them to a house at Jubilee Hills and robbed 13 tulas of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1, Rs.5,000/- from Shanjuman and Rs.10,000/- from PW.2. They further demanded ransom to release them from their clutches. PWs.1 and 2 also noticed some more 11 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch persons were detained and confined in other rooms. PWs.1 and 2 were informed by other persons that they were confined by the accused for more than a week. There were some more persons other than the accused in the house. They beat PWs.1, 2 and another black and blue. They came to know the names of the offenders while they were talking together. PW.1 was made to contact his wife to arrange money by depositing the amount into his account at his native place and accordingly, his wife deposited the amount. The offenders withdrew an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs by using the ATM Card of PW.1 and started further demanding to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs so as to release them, failing which, they were warned to kill.
iv) On 16.05.2009 at about 00.30 A.M., the accused released him saying that he should contact the family members of PW.1 and bring Rs.5.00 lakhs within two days and on their failure, they would kill PW.1 and his friend.
v) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.224 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court. 12
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
vi) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the accused, however, Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on their behalf.
vii) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides and on consideration of entire evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on them in the manner stated above. Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022:
11. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.69 of 2009 of Moghalpura Police Station arising out of S.C. No.481 of 2015 is as under:
i) On 15.05.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., de facto complainant -
PW.1, resident of Shalibanda, Hyderabad, lodged a report with the police alleging that his brother (PW.2) and his brother's son (PW.3) were sitting in their office premises at about 9.30 A.M on 14.05.2009, an unknown person approached them and asked them to come over with him to meet accused No.8, who allegedly came from Visakhapatnam dealing with some rice pulling coin display at 9.30 13 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch A.M. Then PWs.2 and 3 followed, and the said person, who came on two wheeler motorcycle bearing No.AP 9AJ 2481 kept the same in their house, accompanied PWs.2 and 3 in TATA Safari bearing No.AP 12F 5915 and from there onwards, whereabouts of PWs.2 and 3 were not known to PW.1. On the intervening night of 14/15.05.2009, the family members of PW.2 received a phone call from PW.3 informing that PW.3 and PW.2 were kidnapped and the kidnappers were demanding a ransom of Rs.10.00 lakhs.
ii) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.
iii) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P41 were marked and so also MOs.1 to 16 on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the accused, however, Exs.D1 to D14 were marked on their behalf.
iv) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against 14 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on them in the manner stated above.
Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859 and 1189 of 2016 and 602 of 2022:
12. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.537 of 2009 of Rajendranagar Police Station arising out of S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011 is as under:
i) PW.1 - de facto complainant, Mr. S. Srinivas, resident of Katedan, Rajendranagar, approached the police and gave a report on 16.05.2009 alleging that about five days prior to his statement, accused No.8 said to be the resident of Jubilee Hills came in contact with him and told him that he had rice puller, which is a very auspicious antique item and offered to sell the same. PW.1 stated that he was in search of antique item and as such, he agreed to purchase the same.
ii) On 14.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., accused No.8 along with two others, namely Sridhar and Tanuj, accused Nos.2 and 6, came to his house where he was waiting for them along with his friend Mohana Krishna Reddy and the said three persons took them to a house at Jubilee Hills area in their Scorpio vehicle for showing the 15 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch antique item. When he entered into the house along with Mohan Krishna Reddy, they found some other persons in that house and one Mr. Anil and his son, Sudheer of Moghalpura were also there. As soon as they entered into the house, accused No.8 and about 10 others started beating them with sticks and they snatched away his gold rings, watch and cell phone. They also snatched cash from his friend, told them that they have abducted them and demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs to release them from their clutches. They also took the ATM Cards forcibly. On 15.05.2009 at about 9.30 P.M., the offenders released him saying if he does not bring Rs.3.00 lakhs by next day, they would kill his friend Mr. Mohana Krishna Reddy. Then, he came out from the said den and reached his house in an auto-rickshaw and, thereafter, he approached the police and lodged the report.
iii) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.537 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.
iv) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the 16 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the accused, however, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on their behalf.
v) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on them in the manner stated above.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants in all the aforesaid appeals contended as follows:
i. None of the witnesses specifically stated about involvement of the accused;
ii. There were no specific overt acts against the appellants; iii. There is no evidence to prove guilt of the accused in commission of offences;
iv. There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses;
v. The ingredients of Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC are lacking; vi. Though some of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the prosecution did not examine them;17
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch vii. The panchanamas were prepared at the police station and without knowing the contents, the panchas signed on them. Therefore, no weight need be given to it; viii. No property said to have stolen was recovered in S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011 and 483 of 2015;
ix. The prosecution failed to prove the owner of the house situated at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, where the accused alleged to have detained the victims illegally;
x. The Investigating Officers failed to collect data from the banks and examine them as witnesses for alleged withdrawal of amount with the help of ATM Cards from the accounts of the victims;
xi. The Investigating Officers also failed to collect the call data from the Service Providers in Crime No.69 of 2009 of Moghalpura Police Station, wherein it is the case of prosecution that PW.3 called PW.1 stating that he and his father were kidnapped by the accused;
xii. The evidence of victims is contradictory with each other; 18
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch xiii. Test identification parade was not conducted by the Investigating Officers and, therefore identifying the accused during trial in the Court is doubtful;
xiv. The victims were allowed to move freely and speak to their near and dear over phone. Therefore, there is no confinement of the victims as alleged;
xv. The appellants were falsely implicated in these cases; xvi. The trial Court without considering all the said aspects, recorded conviction against the appellants and imposed sentences of imprisonment on them; and xvii. With the aforesaid submissions, they sought to set aside the conviction and sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants.
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as follows:
i. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; ii. During trial, the victims identified the appellants as accused; iii. The lives of the victims are at stake in the hands of the appellants as they beat the victims indiscriminately, robbed gold chains and rings, withdrew the cash by taking ATM Cards and 19 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch further demanded for ransom money by making phone calls to their family members. If they do not bring the money, they threatened to kill them;
iv. Though there are contradictions and omissions, the same are minor in nature and would not tilt the case of prosecution; v. The prosecution satisfied the ingredients of the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC;
vi. The Investigating Officers recovered the robbed gold chains, rings and cash etc., pursuant to the confessions made by the accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The evidence of panch witnesses is corroborated the same; vii. The accused committed grave and serious offences; viii. The prosecution has produced cogent evidence before the trial Court, and the accused failed to produce any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, on consideration of the same, the trial Court convicted the accused. There is no error in the findings of the trial Court to interfere with the impugned judgments; and ix. With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to dismiss all the appeals.20
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
15. In view above rival submissions, the common point that falls for consideration by this Court is:
Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants - accused for the offences under Sections - 364A, 395 and 343 of IPC and imposition of sentences of imprisonment for life and other imprisonment on them are sustainable, both on facts and in law?
16. As already stated above, the trial Court convicted the appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 for the offences under Sections - 464A, 395 and 343 of IPC, while the appellants - accused in S.C. Nos.483 & 481 of 2015 and 296 & 295 of 2011 were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC.
i) The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 & 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022 are not only accused in S.C. No.484 of 2015, but they are also accused in S.C. Nos.483, 481 of 2015, 296 and 295 of 2011 against which they preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 & 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022, 779, 788, 854, 1191 & 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022 respectively. 21
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
ii) Vide the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2016, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section - 343 of IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in each case. The appellants are in jail from 25.07.2016. Thus, they have already completed the said period of two years of sentence imposed by the trial Court in S.C. No.484 of 2015 for the offence under Section 343 of IPC.
17. The appellants - accused in all the aforesaid cases were also convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC. In the light of the same, it is relevant to extract Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC and the same is as under:
"364A. Kidnapping for ranson, etc.- whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." 22
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch "395. Punishment for dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
i) In view of the above, Section - 362 of IPC deals with 'abduction', and it says that whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
a) It is also relevant to note that Section - 364A of IPC was brought into the Statute by way of an amendment i.e., Act No.42 of 1993 (w.e.f. 22.05.1993). That was a period when kidnapping and abduction for the purpose of ransom were on the rise and, therefore, the Law Commission of India in its 42nd Report in 1971 had recommended insertion of Section 364A in IPC, though it was ultimately incorporated in the year 1993.
b) In Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Union of India 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section - 364A of IPC did not merely cover acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also 1 . (2015) 9 SCC 502 23 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch covered cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual.
c) The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the ingredients of Section - 364A of IPC. In Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana 2, the Apex Court considered the essential conditions incorporated in Section - 364A of IPC, more particularly, the second condition which begins with conjunction and two parts of the second condition and that third condition begins with the word 'or'. Paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 are relevant and, therefore the same are extracted below:
"13. The first essential condition as incorporated in Section 364A is "whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction". The second condition begins with conjunction "and". The second condition has also two parts, i.e., (a) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall fulfil the second condition for offence. The third condition begins with the word "or", i.e., or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental 2 . (2021) 9 SCC 59 24 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. Third condition begins with the word "or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom". Section 364A contains a heading "kidnapping for ransom, etc." The kidnapping by a person to demand ransom is fully covered by Section 364A.
14. We have noticed that after the first condition the second condition is joined by conjunction "and", thus, whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person.
15. The use of conjunction "and" has its purpose and object. Section 364A uses the word "or" nine times and the whole section contains only one conjunction "and", which joins the first and second condition. Thus, for covering an offence under Section 364A, apart from fulfilment of first condition, the second condition, i.e., "and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person" also needs to be proved in case the case is not covered by subsequent clauses joined by "or".
16. The word "and" is used as conjunction. The use of word "or" is clearly distinctive. Both the words have been used for different purpose and object. Crawford 25 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch on Interpretation of Law while dealing with the subject "disjunctive" and "conjunctive" words with regard to criminal statute made following statement:-
".....The Court should be extremely reluctant in a criminal statute to substitute disjunctive words for cojunctive words, and vice versa, if such action adversely affects the accused." "
d) The Apex Court placing reliance on the judgments rendered by it in various cases concluded the essential conditions to convict an accused under Section - 364A of IPC in paragraph No.33 to 35 and the same are extracted as under:
"33. After noticing the statutory provision of Section 364A and the law laid down by this Court in the above noted cases, we conclude that the essential ingredients to convict an accused under Section 364A which are required to be proved by prosecution are as follows:-
(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and
(ii) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or;26
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
(iii) causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.
34. Thus, after establishing first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is "and". Thus, in addition to first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved, failing which conviction under Section 364A cannot be sustained.
35. The second condition which is "and threatens to cause a death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt" is relevant for consideration in this case since appellant has confined his submission only regarding non- fulfillment of this condition...."
e) The Apex Court reiterated the said principle, more particularly the ingredients of Section - 364A of IPC in Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana 3.
ii) Now coming to Section - 395 of IPC, it is relevant to note that Section - 391 of IPC deals with dacoity and it says that when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or 3 . (2023) 6 SCC 76 27 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
a) Section - 390 of IPC deals with 'robbery'. It says that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
b) When theft is robbery. Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
c) When extortion is robbery. Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
28
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
d) The explanation thereto says that the offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
e) Section - 395 of IPC deals with punishment for dacoity, and it says that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
f) Thus, to attract the offence under Section - 391 of IPC, the following ingredients are essential:
(i) There should be five (05) persons or more;
(ii) Commit or attempt to commit the robbery; and
(iii) All such persons should act conjointly.
Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022 arising out of S.C. No.484 of 2015:
18. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the case on hand, to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 4 - the victims, PW.2 - doctor, who treated PW.4 and issued Ex.P3 - wound certificate, PW.3 - panch for observation panchanama, PW.5 - panch for confession and seizure panchanama of accused No.10, PW.6 - panch for search proceedings confession 29 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch and seizure panchanama of accused No.2, PW.7 - panch for further confession of accused No.10, PW.8 - Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet, PW.9 - Investigating Officer, who recovered the property and arrested the accused, while PW.10 - Investigating Officer, who registered the case and issued FIR, and marked Exs.P1 to 19 and MOs.1 to 4 were exhibited. On the other hand, to disprove the case of prosecution, Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on behalf of the accused.
i) PW.1 is one of the victims in this case. He was also examined as PW.7 in S.C.No.481 of 2015. In his evidence, he deposed that he was in the field of construction of Cell Towers business and PW.4 - Mohd. Akbar, was his employee. During relevant point of time, PW.4 introduced accused No.8, by name Mr. Rahul as his friend. Sometime thereafter, PW.4 and accused No.8 came to him and Accused No.8 told him that there is antique item which pulls rice and that it is good to keep in the house. Accused No.8 offered to show the same to him.
a) PW.1 further deposed that on 07.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., accused No.8 and PW.4 told him about the said item over phone. He went to the house of PW.4, situated at Lalaguda Railway 30 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch Quarters. PW.8 and accused No.8 were there. Later, accused No.4 came there in a Taxi along with accused No.7. Then, all of them went to Creativity Apartment situated at Tarnaka opposite Axis Bank. In the said apartment, he was taken to a flat. After he entered into the flat, 4 or 5 persons came out of the bath room and bed room including accused No.9 and beat him with sticks and robbed his gold chain, two gold rings and ATM cards of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. The said persons also beat PW.4. Camera and phone of PW.4 were taken away by them. Further, the appellants - accused detained him and PW.4 in the said flat for three (03) days.
b) PW.1 further deposed that after they were taken to that flat, the culprits brought two (02) or more persons and abducted them in the same flat. Later, he, PW.4 and other victims were blindfolded and took them in a vehicle to the house situated near Road No.12, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and kept them in a room. There were some more persons who were acting with accused No.7 and others. When he was at Tarnaka by pouncing him and beating him, they obtained PIN numbers of ATM Cards. After he came out, he verified by taking bank statements and noticed that Rs.4.00 lakhs was withdrawn from his accounts. Even after they were taken to the house at Jubilee Hills, 31 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch the accused and others beat him, PW.4 and other victims, who were abducted. He was beaten every day demanding more money, but he could not arrange more money. He and PW.4 were detained in the house at Jubilee Hills for three (03) days.
c) PW.1 further deposed that on 15.05.2009, the accused let off PW.4 demanding him to go and get Rs.5.00 lakhs from his house, otherwise, they threatened to kill him. On 16.05.2009 at about 3.00 or 4.00 P.M., the police force came to the house in which they were detained. There was clash between the police and the accused and their companions. The police rescued him and others, in all 15 persons and arrested 10 culprits. Some of the culprits escaped from the scene. They were taken to South Zone Police Office and examined them. On the same day evening, PW.4 also came there. He sustained number of injuries and he was taken to Osmania General Hospital, where he was treated by the doctor. PW.4 told him that he gave report to Lalaguda Police Station, who examined him.
d) PW.1 further deposed that among the persons, who beat him, accused No.4 alone was present before the Court and others were not before the Court. He identified MO.1, gold chain, MOs.2 and 3, two 32 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch (02) gold rings robbed from him, MO.4 is Camera robbed from PW.4. Ex.P1 is the ATM card of ICICI Bank robbed from him, while Ex.P2 is ATM Card of Axis Bank. By mistake, he mentioned that the Card is that of HDFC Bank. He has identified accused No.6. He can identify some of the victims abducted in the house. Among them, Mr. Shivam said to be resident of Bangaluru, Mr.Jyothi Kumar of Jangaon (PWs.1 and 2 in S.C. No.483 of 2015) and two (02) Marwadies i.e., father and son. He again deposed that there was only one Marwadi.
e) During cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that he got acquaintance with accused No.8 for the first time fifteen (15) days prior to the subject incident. After fifteen (15) days, he verified his accounts and found about withdrawal of cash. He and others in all about ten (10) persons were taken to Hospital at about 4.00 or 4.30 P.M. However, he admitted that he did not know whether the doctor examined all of them or not. The Police, Moghalpura recorded his statement between 3.00 and 4.00 P.M. The Police, Lalaguda also examined him on the same day at 6.00 P.M. after he came out of the Hospital. The place where they were kept at Tarnaka is a flat in Creativity Apartment. He did not state before the police about the name of the apartment, but subsequently he verified and noted the 33 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch name. Similarly, he did not state before the police that the house in which they were abducted at Jubilee Hills near Road No.12 and he came to know about it later on verification. He did not know that the house in which they were detained subsequently is situated in Jubilee Hills till they were rescued from there. He did not state before the police that he, PW.4 and others were taken from Tarnaka after they were blindfolded. He did not remember the names of other persons who were kept in the flat at Tarnaka along with them. The other victims were also rescued by the police from the house at Jubilee Hills.
f) PW.1 further admitted that his wife and other family members did not give any report to the police till they were rescued. Whenever phone call is received by him from his wife, he was made to talk to her normally without disclosing about the kidnap, that he was threatened with dire consequences if his position is disclosed and that similarly the other victims were allowed to answer to the calls. He did not state before the police that his ATM cards were also robbed. Even after they were taken to the house at Jubilee Hills, some persons were kidnapped regularly. He saw Jyothi at Jubilee Hills' house on 10th or 11th May, 2009. He saw Marwadi people on 34 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch 16.05.2009. PW.4 did not go to his house as he does not know the address of his house. Among the persons arrested by the police, accused Nos.7 and 9 were there and accused No.4 escaped. He did not know the names of culprits arrested by the police except accused No.4 - Srinivas Reddy and accused No.7 - Pothu Raju. He did not state before police that he can identify the culprits if shown to him.
ii) PW.4 - Mohd. Akber is another victim. He was also examined as PW.8 in S.C. No.481 of 2015. In his evidence, he deposed that he was employee of PW.1 at the relevant point of time i.e., Supervisor in the erection of telecom towers. He worked under PW.1 for about 1½ years till 2009. He got acquaintance with accused No.8 through his friend, Mr. Ilyas. Subsequently, in connection with data base entry regarding telecom tower work, he went to Vizag in 2008, where he saw accused No.8. Since then, accused No.8 used to call him once in fifteen (15) days or one (01) month. Subsequently, there was a gap of three (03) months and thereafter in the first week of May, 2009, accused No.8 called him and told that he had an antique item called 'Rice Puller'. As his employer, PW.1, was interested in antique items, he told PW.1 about rice puller, on which PW.1 35 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch expressed his interest to see it and accordingly he informed the same to accused No.8.
a) PW.4 further deposed that accused No.8 told him that he would come to his house by 11.00 A.M. on 07.05.2009. PW.1 came to his house by that time. Accused No.8 came to his house along with 2 others whose names were informed to him as Mr. Dinesh Reddy and Mr. Venkateshwarlu in a Taxi. Accused No.8 and others asked PW.1 about the mode of payment to be made on which PW.1 asked them to show the item. Then, accused No.8 and others asked him and PW.1 to accompany them and hurriedly brought them in the same Taxi to an Apartment situated near Railway Degree College, Tarnaka. They were taken to a flat situated in the fourth floor. After they entered into that house, some persons came out of the rooms and among them accused Nos.1 to 6 were there along with one Mr. Dinesh Reddy. They attacked him and PW.1 by gauging with towels. They beat them with sticks and demanded money. They robbed his cell phone and Handycam and his ATM card and they verified with the help of PIN number and as no balance was there, they returned his ATM Card. 36
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
b) PW.4 further deposed that they robbed gold chain of PW.1, gold rings and bracelet, watch and his ATM Card. With the help of ATM Card of PW.1, they withdrew about Rs.3.00 lakhs on different dates. He and PW.1 were made necked and beat them. PW.1 was demanded to give more money. They made PW.1 to talk to his wife and by selling gold ornaments she deposited Rs.1.00 lakh in the account of PW.1. That amount was also withdrawn by the aforesaid accused. They were confined in the flat at Tarnaka for 3 or 4 days. Subsequently, on one midnight, he and PW.1 were blindfolded, hands were tied and kept in a vehicle and at the point of knives they were made to sit in the vehicle and were taken to some place at Jubilee Hills. That car was driving by Mr. Dinesh Reddy and accused Nos.4 and 5 escorted the said car. At Jubilee Hills, they were kept in a room. After they were taken, there were about six (06) persons abducted by the accused, like them. At Jubilee Hills, he saw accused Nos.7, 9 and 10 along with other accused. He can identify some of the persons abducted by the accused i.e., Mr.Shivam, Mr. Shajumon, Mr. Anil, Mr. Srivastaav and his son, Mr. Jyothi Kumar, Mr. Mohan Krishna. They were confined in the house at Jubilee Hills for about three (03) days. After they were taken there, the aforesaid victims were brought 37 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch in batches and beat them in the same fashion demanding money from them. The accused threatened to kill PW.1 and demanded him to get more money.
c) PW.4 further deposed that on the night of 14/15.05.2009, he escaped and by taking in an Auto, he went near his house. There were number of injuries on his body. Instead of going into his house from there, he went to Lalaguda Police Station on walk and met Sub- Inspector of Police, who recorded his statement. It was at about 1.00 A.M. on 15.05.2009. After recording Ex.P6 - statement, he was sent to Gandhi Hospital by the police. The doctor examined him. Later, he again went to the police station by about 12.00 noon. Since then till evening, he roamed in the surroundings without going to house as there were injuries on his body. At about 12.00 A.M. i.e., in the intervening night of 15/16.05.2009, he was called by constable through phone and informed him that PW.1 and other were rescued from Jubilee Hills and that they were at South Zone Office and asked him to come over there. Then, he went to South Zone Police Office, who recorded his statement. Lalaguda Police also recorded his statement.
38
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
d) During cross-examination, PW.4 has admitted that before signing on Ex.P6, he has gone through it. He and PW.1 talked to accused No.8, who agreed to come to his house to show the Rice Puller item. He did not state before the police that the flat at Tarnaka was in the 4th floor and about the quantum of ransom demanded by the accused. He did not state before the police about accused taking his ATM and returning it as no money was there; about making PW.1 to talk to his wife and about her selling gold ornaments and depositing Rs.1.00 lakh in the account of PW.1; about blindfolding them and tying their hands while shifting them from Tarnaka to Jubilee Hills. As accused Nos.4 and 5, who tied their hands and blindfolded them sat by their side to prevent them from escaping. He knew that it was accused Nos.4 and 5 that escorted them and before blindfolding them he saw Mr. Dinesh Reddy in the driving seat. He did not know whether there was any watchman at the apartment at Tarnaka where they were confined for some time. One day after they were taken to Jubilee Hills, Mr. Shivam and his friend were brought to that house. 4 or 5 hours thereafter Mr. Anil and his son Mr. Sudheer were also brought there. He did not call to the wife of PW.1. He was in confused state by the time and, therefore, he approached the police. 39
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch He did not know what to do to rescue PW.1. He did not perceive any threat to the life of PW.1 by giving statement before Lalaguda police.
e) PW.4 further deposed that Moghalpura police recorded his statement five (05) days after the incident. He had no prior acquaintance with any accused standing before the Court. He gave phone number of accused No.8 to the police. He never saw rice pulling item and he did not know its worth.
iii) PW.5, panch witness, deposed that on 18.06.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station called him and accordingly he went there. The Inspector also called LW.12. At that time, accused No.10 was there. The police showed him a rental agreement and a panchanama was prepared there. The police obtained his signatures and LW.12 on the Photostat copy of Ex.P7 - rental agreement, which was seized from accused No.10.
a) During cross-examination, PW.5 has admitted that he knew PWs.1 and 2 since long time as they are residents of same locality in which he resides. Panchanama was prepared at the police station and the police informed him that Ex.P7 was recovered from accused No.10. Panchanama was prepared when he was sitting in the police 40 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch station. He cannot read and write English. Contents of panchanama were read over to him before he signed on it. Accused No.10 alone was present in the police station on that day. None of the other accused present before the Court were there along with accused No.10.
iv) PW.6 - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, (Also examined as PW.4 in S.C. No.483 of 2015, PW.12 in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and PW.5 in S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011), deposed that he is the resident of Shalibanda and doing business in cloth. On 16.5.2009 at about 6.00 P.M., Police, Moghalpura called him to the police station and accordingly he went there. By the time he went, LW.17 was there. The police took both of them to a house situated in Navanirman Nagar, which is part of Jubilee Hills, where they noticed a vehicle bearing No.AP with some English letters '5915', which is a Safari Vehicle Blue in colour was found parked in front of that house. About eight (08) police personnel headed by the Inspector of Police came there along with them. The police found 6 or 7 persons who were kidnappers and 12 or 13 persons who were victims of abduction in that house. The police came there with expectation that only 1 or 2 persons might be there, but on seeing number of persons, the police 41 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch got confused. The police caught all the persons and tied them and then ascertained the victims and separated them from the culprits. The house in which they were found is Duplex house.
a) PW.6 further deposed that they also found some sticks, thermocol box, in which some newspapers were there. They also found some number plates used for vehicles. The police prepared Ex.P8 - panchanama and obtained their signatures on them. The police seized the sticks and box with newspapers and vehicle found in front of the house, vide Ex.P9 - seizure panchanama. Accused Nos.2 to A7 were the kidnappers found in that house. In Ex.P8, the names of the offenders and victims were mentioned. Later, they returned to Moghalpura Police Station by about 8.30 P.M. The police brought accused Nos.2 to 7 and all the rescued victims to police station.
b) PW.6 further deposed that at the police station, the police had interrogated the above accused. During interrogation, accused No.2 confessed and accordingly cash of Rs.3,000/- and 3 Cell phones and Voter identity card of accused No.2 were seized from his possession and in pursuance of his confession, accused No.2 took them to another house situated near the house from where accused No.2 was arrested and a Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP with some 42 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch English letters and No.8338 was shown and the same was seized by the police along with the aforesaid articles. The police prepared confession-cum-seizure report and obtained their signatures. Ex.P10 is the admissible portion of the said report containing seizure of articles.
c) PW.6 further deposed that later Accused No.3 was interrogated and based on his confession, the police recovered cash of Rs.2,000/- and odd, two debit/credit cards, which were seized from him and panchanama was prepared and their signatures were obtained on it. Ex.P11 is the relevant portion of panchanama about seizure of cash and debit and credit cards. Later, accused No.4 was interrogated and based on his confession, the police seized cash of Rs.2,400/- or 2,600/- from him and prepared another panchanama and obtained their signatures on it. Ex.P12 is the relevant portion of panchanama about seizure of cash from accused No.4, and so also an amount of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.5 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.6 and two debit/credit cards vide Ex.P13. Further an amount of Rs.2,000/- and three Cell Phones and Wallet were seized from accused No.7 vide Ex.P14.
43
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
d) During cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that he gave evidence about this incident in IX ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad. He did not remember if he deposed in that case i.e., C.C.No.569 of 2009 that "on 14.4.2009 one Sameer Kumar Srivastav, who is the second son of Anil Kumar Srivastav received phone call from Anil Kumar Srivastav stating that he is in trouble and he was kidnapped and asked for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, he was present by the side of Mr. Sameer Kumar Srivastav. Anil Kumar Srivastav is his neighbour and his friend the said Anil Kumar Srivastav was waiting outside the court hall today" as in Ex.D4. He did not remember if he deposed in the said case that accused were present in the task force office at the time of confession as in Ex.D5. He also did not remember if he deposed in that C.C. that in the morning hours of 16.05.2009 he was called by C.I. of Task Force to his office and he went there and saw all the accused in that case in that office as in Ex.D6. The police obtained signatures of accused on their respective confessions. He signed 7 or 8 times on the confessions. He did not remember how many sets (number of copies) of confessions were prepared. The police interrogated the accused showed the articles recovered and prepared panchanamas and obtained their signatures. It took more than two 44 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch hours for interrogation, recovery and preparation of panchanamas. In all, he put about 20 signatures on all the panchanamas and other documents. Most of the cash seized from the accused is in the denomination of five hundred rupee. He did not observe whether the notes were old or new. Ex.P8 was prepared at the Jubilee Hills House. It took more than one hour at that house.
v) PW.7 - Mr. Vishal Srivastav (also examined as PW.5 in S.C. No.483 of 2015 and PW.13 in S.C. No.481 of 2015), deposed that on 29.06.2009 at about 2.00 P.M. the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura called him to the police station. By the time he went there, one Mr. Raju was present. In the police Station, accused No.10 was found in the custody of police. On interrogation in his presence, accused No.10 confessed about the commission of offence and offered to show the house of his friend viz., Mr. Paul in which accused No.10 kept cash and jewellery got by him in the commission of present offence. The police prepared panchanama and obtained his signatures and the signatures of Mr. Raju. Ex.P15 is the admission portion of confession of accused No.10. Later, accused No.10 took them to Flat No.104, situated in Srinagar Colony, near Ameerpet, wherein, Mr. Paul was there. On questioning, Mr. Paul brought out a plastic carry bag. 45
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch There is a cash of Rs.50,000/-, three (03) gold chains and a gold kada in the said bag. The police seized them vide Exs.P16 to P18. During cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from this witness.
vi) PW.8 - P. Shiva Bhaskar, the then Inspector of Police, Lalaguda Police Station, deposed about conducting of investigation with regard to tracing the offenders, surrendering of accused No.10 before him, his arrest and release on bail and collection of copies of confessions of accused, remand report, seizure reports and laying charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 and 10, while accused Nos.9 and 11 were found absconding etc. In the cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited by the accused.
vii) PW.9 - D. Raj Kumar (Also examined as PW.8 in S.C. No.483 of 2015, PW.14 in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and PW.8 in S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011), the then Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station, deposed about arrest of accused No.1 on 24.06.2009 and recovery of MOs.2 and 3 in pursuance of confession made by accused No.1. He further deposed that he arrested accused No.9 on 01.07.2009, however, he did not recover anything in connection to the 46 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch present case. He also arrested accused No.10 on 18.06.2009, and in pursuance of his confession, he recovered MO.1 - gold chain. In the cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited by the accused.
viii) PW.10 - S.R. Venkateswar Naik, the then Inspector of Police, Lalaguda Police Station, deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16.05.2009 at 1.00 A.M., when PW.4 came to his police station, he recorded his statement vide Ex.P6. Based on the same, he registered Ex.P9 FIR vide crime No.100 of 2009. As PW.4 was having injuries on his body, he sent him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. Then, he went to the house of PW.4 at Railway Quarters, North Lalaguda, inspected the scene in the presence of PW.3 and one Mr. M. Veeranna. He did not find any incriminating material there. During the course of investigation, he came to know that Moghalpura Police arrested some of the accused in this case and he went there. He collected copies of FIR, confession statements of arrested accused and MOs.1 to 3. In the cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited by the accused.
19. The aforesaid facts would reveal that both PWs.1 and 4, victims, specifically deposed about their abduction and abduction of 47 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch other persons/victims by the appellants - accused. Both of them specifically stated that the appellants herein detained them, robbed gold chain, gold rings and ATM Card from PW.1 and Cell Phone and Handycam from PW.4. They have also beat PWs.1 and 4 and other victims with sticks. Thereafter, they were shifted from the flat situated at Tarnaka to a house at Jubilee Hills and detained there for about 3 to 4 days. The accused withdrew an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the account of PW.1 and they have demanded further amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs from PW.1 and accordingly they released PW.4 with instructions to go to the house of PW.1 and get the said amount, failing which, they would kill PW.1. Thus, PWs.1 and 4 specifically deposed about the abduction, detention and threat to cause death or hurt and thereby their conduct give rise a reasonable apprehension that both PWs.1 and 4 may be put to death or hurt. The accused have also robbed the aforesaid items i.e., gold chain, rings and ATM Card and withdrawal of Rs.4.00 lakhs etc., from the account of PW.1 with the help of ATM Card and Cell Phone and Handycam from PW.4. The appellants herein also beat them with sticks. They were shifted from Tarnaka to Jubilee Hills by blindfolding them. During cross- examination nothing was elicited from them.
48
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
20. PW.2, the doctor, who treated PW.4 and issued Ex.P3 - wound certificate. According to him, the following injuries were found on the body of PW.4.
i. Bruises on the back indicating assault with rod/stick; ii. Bruises on the high and ankle Ventrally present (front portion); iii. Complaint of blunt injury on the chest;
iv. Pain and swelling on the left elbow on the right forearm.
a) PW.4 was advised X-ray of Chest, left elbow and right wrist with forearm. X-ray showed no bone injury. Based on his examination, he opined that the injuries sustained by PW.4 are simple in nature and they might have been caused by any blunt weapon. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not noted the detailed address of injured, but noted that he is the resident of Lalaguda. He has not noted any identification marks of injured. He has not obtained signature or thumb impression of injured at the column meant for it. It is not mentioned in Ex.P3 about nature of weapons with which the injuries found on the injured might have been caused. He cannot say the date on which Ex.P3 was given to the police.
49
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
b) PW.3 is the panch witness and according to him, the police questioned some of them and prepared observation report and rough sketch of the said place vide Exs.P4 and P5 which contains his signatures. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not know PW.4. He signed on Exs.P4 and P5 at the police station and police showed him the place at which kidnap was done.
21. Thus, the prosecution has proved abduction of PWs.1 and 4, their illegal detention by the appellants and that the appellants have threatened both PWs.1 and 4 to cause death or hurt. This conduct of the appellants give rise the apprehension of PWs.1 and 4 that they may be put to death or cause hurt. Prosecution also proved the ingredients of Section - 395 of IPC by examining the aforesaid witnesses. PWs.1 and 4 were confined in a flat situated at Tarnaka and thereafter shifted them to a house situated at Jubilee Hills. As stated above, during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, nothing incriminating was elicited from them. Ex.P3 - wound certificate discloses the injuries on the body of PW.4 caused by the appellants.
50
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
22. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in 161 Cr.P.C. statement, PW.4 categorically stated on 07.05.2009 in the morning hours, he along with PW.1 were waiting at his house, at about 1100 hours, accused No.8 along with his friends, Mr. Srinivas Reddy, Venkatesh and Raju came to his house in a Taxi, whereas in the evidence before the trial Court, PW.4 has deposed that accused No.8 along with Mr. Dinesh Reddy and one Mr. Venkateshwarlu came to his house in a Taxi. Thus, there are contradictions. Further, the said Mr. Dinesh Reddy and the said Venkateshwarlu were not examined by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the evidence of PW.4 has to be sidelined. But, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, non-examination of the aforesaid two persons is not at all fatal to the case of prosecution, more particularly, considering the deposition of PWs.1, 2, 4 and panch witnesses.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the victims were allowed to move freely and they were allowed to speak with their family members and, therefore, there is no kidnapping and that the victims went to the flat voluntarily and, therefore, the question of abduction does not arise.
51
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
i) PWs.1 and 4 specifically deposed that the accused instructed them to speak to their family members over phone and demanded ransom; while speaking to their family members, the accused stood beside them, threatened them not to disclose about their abduction etc., failing which they will have to face dire consequences. The accused also threatened them to kill if they disclose their location, kidnap etc. Thus, the accused did not allow the victims (PWs.1 and 4) to speak to their family members freely.
ii) In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 that they were abducted by the appellants and threatened them that they would kill them if PW.1 does not pay the demanded amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the said contention is unsustainable. The appellants made PW.1 to speak to his wife only for depositing an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh into his account and withdrawal of the same by the appellants apart from the amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs, would show the commission of offences by the appellants.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Investigating Officers did not conduct test identification parade to identify the accused and also to identify the robbed gold chains and 52 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch rings etc., and, therefore, non-conducting test identification of parade is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is trite to note that test identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and its primary purpose is for making sure that the investigation is going on in the right direction, particularly as far as the identity of the accused is concerned. It is also settled law that when other cogent evidence is available, non-conducting of identification parade is not so material and hence not fatal to the prosecution case. But, in the case on hand, prosecution heavily relies on the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 being the victims to prove the identity of the appellants herein as the assailants, were beaten by the accused and they were received injuries. In view of the same, identification of the accused by the victims during trial before the Court and so also the stolen property cannot be doubted. Thus, the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants is unsustainable.
25. In the administration of criminal justice, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Further, if two views are possible on the consideration of evidence produced in the case, one indicating 53 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the Court entertains a reasonable doubt regarding guilt of the accused, the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the Court must not reject the evidence of prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the Court must be integrated, not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case.
54
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
26. In view of the above basic principles of criminal jurisprudence, coming to the present cases, the offences alleged against the appellants are under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC.
i) As already discussed above, the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section - 364A of IPC which the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there. The prosecution proved the same by examining PWs.1 and 4, the victims, who specifically deposed that the appellants took them to the aforesaid house, detained there and beat them indiscriminately. Further, the appellants robbed the gold chain, gold rings, ATM Cards, withdrew the cash and further demanded ransom for their release by making phone calls to the wife of PW.1. If the amount is not arranged, threatened them to kill. Thus, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and legally acceptable evidence, both oral and documentary.
ii) With regard to the offence under Section - 395 of IPC, as discussed above, the essential ingredients are; i) the accused had 55 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch committed or attempted to commit robbery; ii) persons committing or attempting to commit robbery must be five or more. This includes the person present and aiding; and iii) all such persons should act conjointly.
a) In Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa 4, on examination of the facts therein, the Apex Court held all the accused persons committed dacoity in the houses of the complainant one after the other and looted and took away various kinds of property in the nature of watches, ornaments, etc. All the accused were held guilty under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code.
b) In Ganesan v. State, rep.by Station House Officer5, while discussing the essential element of Section - 391 of IPC, the Apex Court observed that the offence under Section 391 of IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC cannot be declared to not have been made out just because some of the accused fled and less than five individuals turned up to be punished in the trial. It is necessary to take into account that five or more people participated in and committed the robbery, not whether those people were put on trial. When five or more people jointly commit the robbery offence or attempt to commit 4 . (1985) 2 SCC 533 5 . LiveLaw 2021 SC 614 56 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch the robbery, the case is brought under Section 391 of IPC and is considered to be a "dacoity," depending on the evidence.
c) As discussed above, in these cases, the appellants are more than five in number and all of them jointly committed the aforesaid offence. Thus, the prosecution also proved the said offence by producing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary.
27. As discussed above, the trial Court considered the nature of offences committed by the appellants and that they are habituated in committing the offences. The trial Court also considered the modus operandi in securing the presence of persons including the victims in the present cases on the pretext of production of Rice Puller, kept them in wrongful confinement and thereby robbing their valuable movables and demanding ransom amount from them, their friends and relatives. The trial Court also considered the fact that several persons were confined by the accused. The offences committed by the appellants are serious and grave in nature. On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, both oral and documentary and gravity of the offence in paragraph Nos.4 to 17 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court gave a specific finding that the appellants committed the 57 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted them by imposing the sentences of life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. It is a reasoned order and well-founded. The appellants failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus, all the present appeals fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.
Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022 (arising out of S.C. No.483 of 2015):
28. Coming to these appeals, the appellants herein - accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7, were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC and they were imposed imprisonment of life and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. To prove their guilt, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 - the victims, PWs.3 and 5 - panchs for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.10, PW.4 - panch for confession and seizure panchanama of accused Nos.2 to 7, PW.9 - the doctor, who treated PW.1 for the injuries he sustained, PW.7, the Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR, PW.8, the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and recovered stolen property from the accused and PW.6, the Inspector of police, who laid charge sheet against the accused, and marked Exs.P1 58 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch to 16. On the other hand, to disprove the case of prosecution, Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on behalf of the accused.
i) As stated above, the appellants herein were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment for life and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment respectively.
ii) PW.1, the victim deposed that he is the native of Coimbatore. He knows PW.2 - complainant in real estate business at Vizag. He also knows LW.2 - eye witness. On 16.05.2009, PW.2 called him and told him that there is a house for sale at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad worth of Rs.10.00 Crores for Rs.5.00 Crores and asked him to come to Hyderabad. He came to Hyderabad by flight by 10.00 A.M. By the time, he got down at Airport, he found accused Nos.7 and 10 there along with PW.2. They brought a car for him and took him to the said house.
a) PW.1 further deposed that after they got down from the car, they sent away the car. Soon after he entered into the house main gate and door of the house were closed and his mouth was gauged with a towel. Along with accused Nos.7 and 10, other accused, who were 59 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch present in the Court Hall, were there. All of them beat him with sticks of which one stick was damaged. He sustained injuries on mouth, back side and other parts of the body.
b) PW.1 further deposed that the accused demanded him to pay Rs.1.00 Crore as ransom for releasing him. They robbed four (04) gold rings, one (01) gold chain and one (01) Bracelet. PWs.2 and 3 in S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011 and other victims were also in the said house on that day. The accused also robbed ATM Card of ICIC Bank (Ex.P1) in the name of his wife and withdrew an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and cash of Rs.4.00 lakhs which were with him. On the same day, at about 4.30 or 5.00 P.M., about 20 to 30 police came to the house and rescued him and other victims in all about 12 persons. The accused also took his cell phone and did not allow him to talk to anyone. Before coming to the police, the accused informed him that he should talk to his family members to bring money, then only they would release him. After he was taken to the house at Jubilee Hills, PW.2 informed him that there was a Rice Pulling Bowl with accused and if it is sold to anyone, he would get more money.
c) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he told the police what all deposed in his chief-examination. He did not mention 60 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch the name of Airlines in which he came to Hyderabad. He did not give flight ticket to the police. After he was rescued, he called to the Call Centre and got operation of Ex.P1 blocked. He did not meet PWs.2 and 3 before he identified them in the Court Hall. Prior to 16.05.2009, he had no prior acquaintance with accused No.7 and except his name, he did not know the names of other accused.
iii) PW.2 - complainant deposed that he is doing real estate business since 1996. He knows PW.1 since 2002, as part of his business. He used to do real estate business at Vizag. As a part of real estate business, he got acquaintance with accused No.7 also. In the month of April, 2009 on one day, accused No.7 came to his house and told him that there is a rice pulling item and it is good to keep it in the house and enquired him whether there are any buyers for it. Then, he informed the same to PW.1 and accordingly, in the first week of May, 2009, he and accused No.7 went to Vizag and met PW.1 in a lodge and discussed with him. On 09.05.2009, PW.1 sent LW.2 to Hyderabad, to verify the said item, on which LW.2 met accused No.7 on 09.05.2009. On 10.05.2009, PW.1 came to Hyderabad, and LW.2 and accused Nos.7 and 10 were at the Airport. They received PW.1. Accused Nos.7 and 10 brought a private taxi, then he, PW.1 and LW.2 61 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch were taken to Hotel Sitara at Ameerpet, where LW.2 was lodged on the previous day.
a) PW.2 further deposed that from the said hotel, he, PW.1 and LW.2 were taken by accused No.7 and 10 in that private tax to Jubilee Hills stating that the owner of the article will go away. They were taken to a house in Jubilee Hills. By the time they reached, the remaining accused were there. Then, he and accused No.7 were sent out asking them to get milk packets. Later, PW.1 was taken to upstairs of that house to show him the article and he was brought to the down stairs after half-an-hour. He noticed some changes in the face of PW.1.
b) PW.2 further deposed that the accused beat him and PW.1 with stout sticks indiscriminately demanding money. PW.1 sustained head injury. PW.1 was forced to call his wife and asked her to deposit money into his account. Accordingly, she deposited more than Rs.5.00 lakhs in the account of PW.1. The accused robbed ATM Cards, gold chain and number of gold rings from PW.1. The accused also robbed cash of Rs.10,000/-, cell phone, purse and pan card from him. Rs.5,000/- was robbed from LW.2. There were some persons kept in that house who brought in two batches including two 62 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch marwadies and name of one of the marwadies is Mr. Anil Kumar. They were confined in that house till evening of 15.05.2009, when police came and rescued them. After rescue, they were brought to Moghalpura Police Station. The police examined him and let him off in the mid night and asked him to come in the next morning so asto take him to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police as in Ex.P2. He was taken treatment in Gandhi Hospital at Secunderabad.
c) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that after Ex.P2 and after returning from the hospital, the police recorded his statement on 16.05.2009 at about 9.00 A.M. He volunteered that he was released by the accused between 7.00 and 8.00 P.M. on 15.05.2009 with instructions to contact family members of PW.1 and get money
iv) PW.3, panch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.10, deposed that on 18.06.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., the police called him to Moghalpura Police Station and accordingly he went to the police station where LW.7 was also present. The police showed him a rental agreement (Ex.P3) and the same was seized from accused No.10. During cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from him.
63
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
a) This witness was also examined as PW.5 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022.
v) PW.4, panch for search proceedings, confession-cum- seizure panchanama of accused Nos.2 to 7, deposed that the police of Moghalpura called him to the police station on 16.05.2009 at about 6.00 P.M. When he went, LW.5 was also present. The police took them to the house situated in Navanirman Nagar of Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The police found 6 or 7 kidnappers and 12 or 13 victims in that house. Then, the police caught all the persons and tied them, ascertained the victims and separated them from the culprits. Ex.P4 is the search proceedings containing his signature and the signature of LW.5. The police also seized the sticks and box with newspapers and vehicle found in front of the house vide Ex.P5. Accused Nos.2 to 7 being kidnappers found in the said house were brought to the police station by 8.30 P.M.
a) PW.4 further deposed that during interrogation, the police recovered cash of Rs.3,000/- and three (03) cell phones and voter identity card from the possession of accused No.2 and the same were 64 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch seized. In pursuance of confession of accused No.2, the police seized Scorpio vehicle with number 8338. The police also seized cash of Rs.2,000/- and odd, debit/credit cards from accused No.3; cash of Rs.2,400/- or Rs.2,600/- from accused No.4; cash of Rs.2,000/- and a cell phone from accused No.5; cash of Rs.2,000/- and odd and two debit/credit cards from accused No.6; three (03) cell phones, Wallet and cash of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.7. During cross-examination nothing incriminating was elicited from him.
b) This witness was also examined as PW.6 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022.
vi) PW.5, panch for confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of accused No.10, deposed that on 29.06.2009 at about 2.00 P.M., when the police of Moghalpura P.S. called, he went there where accused No.10 was found and confessed that he kept cash and jewellery got by him in the house of his friend viz., Paul. Pursuant to the confession made by accused No.10, they went to the house of Mr. Paul at Flat No.104, Srinagar Colony, near Ameerpet, where the police recovered cash of Rs.50,000/-, three (03) gold chains and a gold kada and the 65 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch same were seized by the police under Exs.P12 to P14. During cross- examination nothing incriminating was elicited from him.
a) This witness was also examined as PW.7 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022.
vii) PWs.6 to 8 are the Police Officers and they deposed with regard to registration of crime, conducting investigation, recording statements of witnesses as well as accused, recovery and seizure of gold ornaments and cell phones etc., and laying of charge sheet against the accused. During cross-examination nothing incriminating was elicited from them.
a) PW.8 herein was also examined as PW.9 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022.
viii) PW.9, the doctor who treated PW.1, deposed that on 16.05.2009 at 11.15 A.M., he examined PW.1 brought by P.C. 66 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch No.6504 of Moghalpura Police Station. According to him, the following injuries were found on the body of PW.1.
i) Multiple abrasions and contusion over back, thighs and buttocks;
ii) Bandage over scalp area.
a) PW.9 further deposed that he referred PW.1 to Neurology Department for X-ray. As per X-ray, no fracture was found. He opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and accordingly he issued Ex.P16 - wound certificate. On the same day, he also examined LW.2 - Mr. K.B. Shanjuman, but he did not find any external injuries over his body.
b) During cross-examination, PW.9 specifically deposed that on that day, he examined four (04) injured one after another who were brought by the same constable. He denied the suggestion that the injuries found on PW.1 cannot be caused by sticks.
29. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that PWs.1 and 2 are the victims. PW.2 is doing in real-estate business and out of such business he came into contact with PW.1 and so also accused No.7. Out of such acquaintance, accused No.7 informed PW.2 that there is an antique piece namely 'Rice Puller' and asked him to search 67 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch a buyer. When PW.2 informed the same to PW.1, who expressed his readiness, but however, asked LW.2 to go and see the same. Accordingly, LW.2 met accused No.7 on 09.05.2009. In the said process, PW.1 also came to Hyderabad and accused Nos.7 and 10 took PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 to the house situated in Jubilee Hills and detained them illegally. By that time, some other victims were also in the said house. Further, accused Nos.7 and 10 and other accused, who were already there in the said house beat them and other victims with sticks indiscriminately due to which, PW.1 and 2 sustained injuries, which is substantiated by the evidence of PW.9, the doctor, who treated them. According to PW.9, the doctor, PW.1 sustained the injuries as mentioned above and accordingly he issued Ex.P16 - wound certificate.
i) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would also reveal that the accused not only beat PWs.1 and 2, but also robbed Ex.P1 - ATM Card of ICICI Bank standing in the name of wife of PW.1 and cash of Rs.4,00,000/- which was with him. Further, by using Ex.P1 - ATM Card, the accused also withdrew an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. PW.1 also further deposed that the accused forced him to talk to his family members, bring money and then only they would release him. The 68 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch said evidence of PW.1 is supported and corroborated by the evidence of PW.2. PW.2 also deposed that the accused robbed cash of Rs.10,000/-, Cell Phone, Purse and Pan Card from him and an amount of Rs.5,000/- from LW.2. The police of Moghalpura came and rescued them and other victims.
ii) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also supported by the evidence of PWs.3, 4 and 5, who deposed about confessions made by accused Nos.2 to 7 and 9, recovery and seizure of cash from the said accused persons. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PWs.1 to 5 and 9 proved the case of the prosecution that the accused committed the aforesaid offences by causing injuries to PWs.1 and 2 and committing robbery, such as cash etc. The evidence of PWs.6 to 9 also establishes that after recording Ex.P2 - statement of PW.2, a case was registered, investigation was conducted by recording statements of witnesses and pursuance to the confessions made by the accused, recovered the stolen property and the same was seized and, therefore, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused.
iii) Since this Court has already discussed while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 69 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch 2022 with regard to the modus operandi adopted by the appellants in commission of offences, threatening to kill the victims etc., there is no need to repeat the conduct of the appellants herein also as the very same appellants - accused committed the offences in these cases also.
iv) The trial Court considered the said aspects and in paragraph Nos.15, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment gave a finding that the appellants committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted them by imposing sentence of life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment on them for the offences under Sections 364A and 395 of IPC, respectively. For the foregoing discussion and also the discussion made while dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022, there is no error committed by the trial Court while recording conviction and imposition of life imprisonment on the appellants warranting interference by this Court. The appellants herein also failed to make out any case and, therefore, all these appeals fail and accordingly the same are liable to be dismissed. 70
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022 arising out of S.C. No.481 of 2015:
30. In his case, the offences alleged against the appellants -
accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7 respectively are under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC. The trial Court imposed life imprisonment and ten (10) years of rigorous imprisonment on them. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P41 and MOs.1 to 16 were exhibited, while to disprove the same, the accused got marked Exs.D1 to D14.
i) The victims in this case are PWs.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. Out of the said witnesses, PWs.4, 5 and 10 were also examined in S.C. No.483 of 2015 as PWs.1, 9 and 2, while PWs.7 and 8 were examined in S.C. No.484 of 2015 as PWs.1 and 4. Since their evidence has already discussed above while dealing with Criminal Appeals Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195, 940 of 2016, 603 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193, 943 of 2016 & 601 of 2022 and to avoid repetition, there is no need to discuss once again herein. Now, the only evidence of remaining victims (i.e., PWs.2, 3 and 6) apart from the evidence of PW.1, who is the brother of PW.2, is relevant to discuss here.
71
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
ii) PW.1 is the complainant and younger brother of PW.2 while PW.3 is the son of PW.2. He deposed that he is doing business in jewellery in the name of 'Sri Chandra Jewellery. On the intervening night of 14/15.05.2009 at about 12.20 A.M., PW.1 received a phone call from mobile Number of PW.3 i.e., 9391029068 stating that PW.3 and his father (PW.2) were kidnapped. After informing the same, PW.3 phone got switched off, even though he tried to call. Then, on the same night, he approached Moghalpura Police Station and informed the same. On the next day morning at about 11.30 A.M., he received phone call from PW.3 and informed him that kidnappers asking for ransom and if an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs is arranged, they would be released.
a) PW.1 further deposed that thereafter he went to DCP, South Zone and informed the same and gave Ex.P1 complaint. At about 2.00 P.M. on the same day, he received from the same cell phone. Then, PW.2 spoke to him and asked him to arrange the said amount, otherwise they would be killed by the kidnappers. After 30 minute, once again he received call from his elder brother (PW.2), whom he informed that he arranged Rs.4.00 lakhs and is also arranging balance amount. When he asked PW.2 how to give the money and to whom, 72 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch PW.2 informed him that kidnappers would come in their Safari Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 09 5189 and by seeing that vehicle, he has to hand over the money to them.
b) PW.1 further deposed that the police team of Moghalpura Police Station and team of DCP were also with him from 12.00 noon onwards on that day. From 2.30 P.M. onwards for every half an hour, he received phone call and by saying that he is pooling the money, he gained time till 4.30 P.M. The police used that opportunity to trace out the location of kidnappers with the help of phone calls received by him. Then, he and the police went up to Jubilee Hills in his Car and police vehicle. Nearby ATM of Axis Bank, they noticed the Safari vehicle of PW.2 and two (02) persons were inside the vehicle. It was about 5.00 P.M., one person was driving the vehicle and another at beside him. He identified accused No.2 as the person driving the said vehicle and accused No.4 as the person who sat beside him. The police stopped that vehicle and accused Nos.2 and 4 tried to run away leaving the vehicle. Then, the police chased them and caught them. On questioning, accused Nos.2 and 4 led them to the house situated at Jubilee Hills where the kidnappers and PWs.2 and 3 were there. He also found 10 more victims and 14 kidnappers, who attacked the 73 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch police. However, the police caught 8 or 10 kidnappers. The victims were having contusions and other injuries over their bodies and they were having only underwear and their hands were tied with ropes. There were injuries on the bodies of PWs.2 and 3. Among the kidnappers, accused Nos.3, 5, 9 and 10 were also there. He volunteered that accused No.10 is the head of gang of kidnappers. PWs.2 and 3 informed him that accused No.8 took them stating that there is a show about rice pulling coin and that they went along with him and later they were kidnapped and they were beaten mercilessly and that gold chain and eight rings were robbed by the accused. During cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from.
iii) PW.2, one of the victims, deposed that on 14.05.2009 at about 9.00 A.M., when he and his son (PW.3) were in his office, accused No.8 came and introduced himself and told him that there is a Vessel with him which pulls rice and it is meant for sale and offered to show it to them. Then, he, his son and friends of his son 2 in number went in a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No.AP 12 5915. Then, accused No.8 took them into a house situated nearby a School in Jubilee Hills and met one Mr. Bhaskar and thereafter accused No.8 disappeared. Within 5 or 10 minutes, about ten persons came from up 74 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch stair and closed their mouths and beat them with fists and sticks indiscriminately.
a) PW.2 further deposed that the accused robbed 8 gold rings, gold bangle (Kada) and gold chain with locket from him and also robbed a gold chain, two gold rings and three silver rings from PW.3. Thereafter, they tied their hands with rope and undressed them leaving only underwear and kept them in a room in the first floor. They told him that if Rs.10.00 lakhs is given to them along with his Safari vehicle, they will release them. He agreed to give the cash demanded by him. Accused No.5 gave cell phone of PW.3 to him and asked him to call PW.1. Then, PW.3 called PW.1 and told him about their kidnap and asked him to arrange Rs.10.00 lakhs demanded by the accused. Thereafter on 15.05.2009 at about 6.00 or 7.00 P.M., PW.1 came along with police, who rescued them. There were about 12 to 15 victims.
b) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that only after he agreed to pay the ransom, they were allowed to make phone call to PW.1. PW.3 called PW.1 twice. He has not given any documentary evidence to prove that the gold robbed from him belonging to him. 75
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
iv) PW.3, son of PW.2, also deposed on the very same lines as deposed by PW.2. He further deposed that accused Nos.2 and 4 to 6 harassed them. In all, they were beaten four (04) times by giving gap of one hour each time, to get ransom demanded. Nothing incriminating was elicited during his cross-examination.
v) PW.6 deposed that he is doing real estate business in and around Hyderabad. On 14.05.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., accused No.8 came to his house along with accused Nos.2 and 6 and introduced accused No.2 as Sridhar and accused No.6 as Tanuj and told him that they are also real estate agents. They also do business in antique items, like Rice Pulling and staying so, they took him in Scorpio vehicle to a duplex house situated at Jubilee Hills near TV5 Office for showing rice pulling article. Soon after they entered into the house, the accused took his ATM Card of ICICI bank, cell phone, wrist watch, two gold rings from him forcibly. They also withdrew cash of Rs.20,000/- from his account. By demanding money of Rs.3.00 lakhs, they beat him with sticks. He further deposed on the same lines as deposed by PWs.2 and 3. In the cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited.
76
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
vi) PW.11, PW.12 and PW.13 were also examined as PWs.5, 6 and 7 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and PWs.3, 4 and 5 in S.C. No.483 of 2015 and their evidence was already discussed above with regard to confessions made by accused Nos.2 to 7 and 10, recovery of stolen property and seizure of the same. Therefore, there is no need to discuss once again.
vii) Similarly PW.14, Inspector of Police, was also examined as PW.9 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already discussed above with regard to registration of crime etc., and, therefore, there is no need to discuss his evidence also herein.
viii) PW.15, another Investigating Officer deposed that PW.14 handed over copy of Ex.P24 - FIR to him and entrusted the investigation. He recorded the statement of PW.1 and thereafter he went to the house of PWs.1 to 3 and found a motorcycle in that house. On the instructions of DCP Task Force stating that the offence is grave, he handed over the CD file to PW.14.
ix) PW.5, the doctor, who was also examined as PW.9 in S.C. No.483 of 2015, deposed that on 16.05.2009 at 11.20 A.M., PW.2 was brought to the hospital accompanied by P.C.No.6504 of Moghalpura 77 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch Police Station. According to him, he found the following injuries on the body of PW.2.
i) A contusion marks present over back of right shoulder;
ii) Contusion present over the back.
The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P3 - wound certificate.
a) On the same day, at 11.30 A.M., he examined PW.3, who was brought by the very same constable and found the following injuries:
i) Multiple contusion over back;
ii) 5 x 6 cm. contusion over back of left thigh;
iii) Swelling on right hand.
The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P4 - wound certificate.
b) On the same day at 11.15 A.M., he examined PW.4 and found the following injuries:
i) Multiple abrasions and contusion over back, thigh and buttocks;
ii) Bandage over the scalp area.
He referred him to Neurology Department for X-ray and as per X-ray, no fracture was found. He issued Ex.P5 - wound certificate. 78
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
c) On the same day at 11.40 A.M., he also examined LW.6, but found no external injuries. He issued Ex.P6 - wound certificate.
d) He also examined LW.7 on the same day at 11.25 A.M., and found the following injuries:
i) Contusions over both arms;
ii) Multiple abrasions over back.
The aforesaid injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P7 - wound certificate.
e) He further deposed that the injuries sustained by the aforesaid victims might have been caused by blunt weapons, like sticks. Nothing incriminating was elicited during his cross-examination.
x) In view of the above evidence, it is clear that the accused beat the victims indiscriminately causing the aforesaid injuries. They also robbed gold chains, rings, wrist watch, cash and ATM Cards etc. Further, the accused also demanded the victims for ransom money. The victims also received injuries on account of beating by the accused with sticks. The acts committed by the accused are grave and serious. As discussed supra, the same would come within the ambit of Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC.
79
KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch
xi) The trial Court having dealt with the evidence on record, both oral and documentary in paragraph Nos.9, 29 and 30 gave a finding that the appellants herein have committed the aforesaid offences. For the reasons mentioned above and on consideration of the evidence, we find no error in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. The appellants failed to make out any case and, therefore, the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859, 1189 of 2016 & 602 of 2022 (arising S.C. No.295 of 2011) and Crl.A. No.946 of 2016 (arising out of S.C. No.296 of 2011):
31. The trial Court passed a common judgment in S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011. Challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016, accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4 and 7 filed Crl.A. Nos.789, 795, 859, 1189 of 2016 and 602 of 2022, while Crl.A. No.946 of 2016 was filed by accused No.10 challenging the very same judgment in S.C. No.296 of 2011.
Though two separate S.C. numbers were assigned as 295 and 296 of 2011, both of them arose out of one and the same crime i.e., Crime No.537 of 2009 of Rajendranagar Police Station.
i) In both these cases, the appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4, 7 and 10 were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364-A and 395 of IPC and accordingly imposed life imprisonment and ten (10) 80 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch years rigorous imprisonment on them, respectively. During trial, the prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P11, whereas, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of the accused.
ii) Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 are victims and they were examined in S.C. No.481 of 2015 as PWs.6, 3 and 2, respectively. Their evidence has already been referred and discussed above at length. There is no need to discuss the same once again herein.
iii) PW.5 in this case was also examined in S.C. No.481 of 2015 as PW.12, PW.4 in S.C. No.483 of 2015 and PW.6 in S.C. No.484 of 2015. He is the panch witness for confession and recovery in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and his evidence has already discussed above, and there is no need to discuss the same once again herein.
iv) Similarly PW.8, Inspector of Police, was also examined in S.C. No.481 of 2015 as PW.14, in S.C. No.483 of 2015 as PW.8 and in S.C. No.484 of 2015 as PW.9 and his evidence has already been discussed above with regard to registration of Crime No.69 of 2009 of 81 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch Moghalpura Police Station, and, therefore, there is no need to discuss the same once again herein.
v) PWs.6 and 7, Inspectors of Police deposed with regard to registration of crime, conducting investigation, recording statements of victims, confessions of accused, recovery, seizure and laying charge sheet against the accused.
32. As discussed above with regard to the acts committed by the accused in abduction of the victims, beating them with sticks indiscriminately, robbery of gold chains, rings, cash, ATM Cards, withdrawal of amount and demanding them for ransom money etc. Accused beat the victims indiscriminately due to which, most of the victims received injuries and they were treated by the doctors. The said acts of the appellants herein squarely fall within the ambit of Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC. All the said aspects were proved by the prosecution by producing cogent and legally acceptable evidence in the manner stated above. The accused failed to disprove the prosecution case by way of rebuttal evidence. The trial Court having discussed and considered the entire evidence, more particularly in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 came to a conclusion that the accused committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted and 82 KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch sentenced them in the manner stated above. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is reasoned and well-founded. The appellants herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said judgment by this Court. Thus, these appeals also fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, all these criminal appeals are dismissed confirming the conviction and imposition of sentences of imprisonment for life and other imprisonments mentioned above by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar on the appellants - accused, vide impugned judgments, all dated 25.07.2016 in S.C.Nos.484 of 2015, 483 of 2015, 481 of 2015, 296 of 2011 and 295 of 2011, respectively for the aforesaid offences.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in all these appeals shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _________________ K. SUJANA, J 7th June, 2024 Mgr