Karnataka High Court
Sri.P. Ravi vs State Of Karnataka on 22 December, 2021
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj, J.M.Khazi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100190/2018
C/W. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
IN CRL.A NO.100190/2018
BETWEEN
SHRI. HEMACHANDRA S/O. T SUBRAMANYA
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O. CHUKAVARPALLI,
AT POST:VEDAGIRIVARIPALLI,
TQ:IRAMANDAL, DIST:CHITOOR,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
NOW SERVING IMPROSONMENT
AT BELAGAVI HINDALAGA JAIL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE MAALAMARUTI POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
2
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580 008.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION DATED 16.10.2017 PASSSED IN SESSIONS
CASE NO.84/2013 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 364(A), 343, 325
AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, 1860.
IN CRL.A NO.100351/2017
BETWEEN
SRI.P. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SRI. CHINNAPPA NAIDU,
R/O: MARUVAPALLI,
DAMALACHIRUVU POST,
PAKKALAMANDALA TALUK,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH,
(NOW UNDER DURESS AT THE
DISTRICT PRISON, BELAGAVI.)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MALAMARUTHI POLICE STATION,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
S.C.NO.84 OF 2013 WHICH WAS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI
AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO REVERSE AND TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2017 PASSED IN THE CASE
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/SECOND ACCUSED OF THE
OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 364-
A, 143, 147, 343, 325, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF
THE IPC AND SENTENCING HIM TO IMPRISONMENT AS WELL
AS THE PAYMENT OF FINE AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF
FINE, TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT AS
AFORESAID AND ORDER HIS ACQUITTAL OF THE OFFENCE
WITH WHICH HE STOOD CHARGED.
IN CRL.A NO.100390/2017
BETWEEN
G. SRINIVASALU
AGED: 33 YEARS,
S/O G. SRIRAMALU,
R/AT: PULLAVARAPPALLI,
GUNDALAGUTTAPALLI POST,
PAKALAMANDALAM TALUK,
CHITTOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALAMARUTHI POLICE,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DAHRWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3-
SRINIVASULU ABOVE NAMED HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS
COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE AT BELAGAVI IN S.C.NO.84/2013 DATED
16.10.2017, IN SO FAR AS APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3-
SRINIVASULU AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ACQUIT HIM.
IN CRL.A NO.100397/2017
BETWEEN
1. SHRI.NAVEENKUMAR S/O SIDDAPPA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: JCB OPERATOR,
R/O: TIMMANAYAKANAKOTE VILALGE,
TQ: PAVAGAD,
DIST: TUMAKURU.
2. SHRI.NARASINHAMURTI S/O IRAPPA
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: JCB OPERATOR,
R/O: TIMMANAYAKANAKOTE VILALGE,
TQ: PAVAGAD,
DIST: TUMAKURU.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT.P G NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
(MALMARUT POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374
(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING THAT JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY IN SESSION CASE
NO.84 OF 2013 DATED 16.10.2017 BY THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 364(A), 343, 325, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 149 IPC AGAINST ACCUSED NOS. 4 AND
5/APPELLANTS BE SET ASIDE AND THE APPELLANTS BE
KINDLY ACQUITTED.
THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING UP FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, SURAJ
GOVINDARAJ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. The above sets of appeals have been filed by
accused no. 1 to 5, who had been convicted by the
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Belagavi (for brevity 'trial Court') vide its judgment
dated 16.10.2017 in S.C.No.84/2013.
2. Accused No.1-Hemachandra has filed Criminal
Appeal No.100190/2018, accused No.2-P.Ravi has
filed Criminal Appeal No.100351/2017, accused
No.3-Srinivasulu has filed Criminal Appeal
No.100390/2017 and accused No.4-Naveen Kumar
and accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy have together
filed Criminal Appeal No.100397/2017.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:
3.1. On 07.11.2012 at about 4.40 p.m.,
CW.4/PW.3 was kidnapped near P & T
quarters, Mahantesh Nagar, Belagavi on his
way back home from school by certain
persons who took him in a white Scorpio
vehicle and the same was informed to
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
CW.1/PW.1-Manjula, mother of CW.4/PW.3,
who lodged a complaint with Malamaruti
Police Station, Belagavi, as regards which
Crime No.448/2012 was registered by the
said police for the offence under Section 365
of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC')
against unknown persons.
3.2. Upon investigation being completed, a charge
sheet was laid against 7 accused of offences
under Sections 143, 147, 325, 364-A, 343
and 506 of IPC. The accused were heard
before framing of charges, thereafter charges
were framed and readout. The accused
pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled
against them and claimed to be tried.
3.3. During the trial, the prosecution in all,
examined 22 witnesses as PWs.1 to 22, got
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
marked 29 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.29 in
addition to bringing on record 17 material
objects as MOs.1 to 17.
3.4. Upon evidence being completed, the
incriminating evidence against the accused
was put across to the accused, who denied
the same at the time of recording the
statement of the accused under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. However, the accused did not lead
any evidence. Thereafter, arguments were
heard and the trial Court has convicted the
accused 1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences and
sentenced them while acquitting accused
No.6.
3.5. It is aggrieved by the said judgment of
conviction and order of sentence that the
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
accused are before this Court by filing various
criminal appeals as aforestated.
4. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, who is
instructed by Sri.Ajay Kadkol and Sri.M.L.Vanti
appearing for accused No.2-P.Ravi in Criminal
Appeal No.100351/2017 submitted that:
4.1. There is a grave issue as regards the
identification of the accused, inasmuch as
none of the persons present with CW.4/PW.3
at the time when he was abducted have
identified the accused.
4.2. CW.1/PW.1-Manjula-the complainant is not a
witness to the crime. She has filed the
complaint on the basis of the statements
allegedly made to her by the other witnesses,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
more particularly CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu
which cannot be believed.
4.3. Accused No.2-P.Ravi has got nothing to do
with the alleged crime. He does not know any
of the other accused and as such there is
nothing that can be incriminated against
accused No.2-P.Ravi. The police have acted in
haste without any basis. Apparently three
teams had been formed which were sent to
various places. The reason of formation of
three teams and sending them to those
particular places is not available.
4.4. On that basis he submits that the accused,
more particularly, accused No.2-P.Ravi has
been framed in the matter, who has nothing
to do with the crime as alleged. Accused
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
No.2-P.Ravi is an agriculturist who carries on
agricultural work in Marvapalli.
4.5. There is no evidence on record to link
accused No.2-P.Ravi with the other accused.
The evidence on record is contradictory,
inasmuch as the police have stated that they
were led to accused No.2-P.Ravi by police
informers at Chittoor and thereafter accused
No.2-P.Ravi is alleged to have taken them to
the house in Kallur forest which is around 15-
20 k.m. away from Marvapalli, where the
kidnapped child CW.4/PW.3 is stated to have
been held.
4.6. Contrary to this, the kidnapped child
CW.4/PW.3 has stated that accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi had
always been at the said house in Kallur
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
forest. Hence, negating the entire story of the
prosecution.
4.7. That there are various issues relating to
seizure of mobiles and knives. The evidence
on record is contradictory, which goes to the
root of the matter. In that background, he
submits that the evidence on record does not
support the kidnapping. Tracing out the
victim-CW.4/PW.3 is full of inconsistent
statements by witnesses.
4.8. The investigation which has been done is
contrary to the provisions of the Information
Technology Act and the Evidence Act,
inasmuch as the documents which have been
referred to and relied upon are not
accompanied by a certificate as envisaged
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act.
5. Sri.Anwar Basha, learned counsel appearing for
accused No.1-Hemachandra in Criminal Appeal
No.100190/2018 has submitted that:
5.1. There is an inconsistency in the evidence as
regards any demand being made, inasmuch
as according to CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi
it is accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy who has
caused the demand for ransom, whereas
CW.4/PW.3-the victim has stated that the
demand for ransom was made by accused
No.1-Hemachandra and he was also made to
speak to his father, CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi, to make payments of monies.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
5.2. This contradiction, he submits, goes to the
root of the matter indicating that accused
No.1-Hemachandra is not at all involved in
the alleged crime.
6. Sri.Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for
accused No.3-Srinivasulu in Criminal Appeal
No.100390/2017 adopts the argument of
Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel. While
reiterating the said arguments, submitted that
there is no one, who has spoken of accused No.3-
Srinivasulu, except for the vague allegation made,
there is nothing to incriminate accused No.3-
Srinivasulu in the present crime. Hence, he
submits that the appeal filed by accused No.3-
Srinivasulu ought to be allowed.
7. Smt.P.G.Naik, learned counsel appearing for
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused No.5-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Narasimhamurthy in Criminal Appeal
No.100397/2017 adopts the submission of
Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel.
8. Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional SPP, in reply
would submit that:
8.1. CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu, CW.8/PW.5-
Ramya and CW.9/PW.9-Sannidhi were the
material eyewitnesses who have deposed
about the kidnapping. Accused No.1-
Hemachandra was working with the father of
the victim (CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi) as
a supervisor. Accused No.6-Siddalinga was
working with the father of the victim as a
driver.
8.2. It is in that background that they had
kidnapped the victim-CW.4/PW.3 to obtain a
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
ransom from CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi.
That the incident having occurred on
07.11.2012, the accused have conspired
together to carry out the offence.
8.3. Ex.P.23 produced with Ex.P.20 indicates that
accused No.1-Hemachandra was staying at a
lodge in Belagavi in order to kidnap
CW.4/PW.3.
8.4. That there is no contradiction in the evidence
of other witnesses. All the seizure has been
properly recorded. Accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi were
represented by a single counsel thus
establishing that there is a relationship
between both of them.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
8.5. The victim-CW.4/PW.3 has identified all the
accused who were involved in the offence of
kidnapping for ransom. The victim having
been found in the company of accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi, the
offence is complete. The trial Court has
appreciated these aspects and had taken into
consideration that the other accused were
also involved in the said offence, has
convicted the accused and this Court is not
required to intercede in the matter and the
judgment passed by the trial Court is just and
proper.
9. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel, who is
instructed by Sri.Ajay Kadkol and Sri.M.L.Vanti in
reply submits that:
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
9.1. CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva, CW.4/PW.3,
CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu and CW.9/PW.9-
Sannidhi have stated that the kidnapper was
travelling in white Scorpio, whereas
CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu has stated that
the kidnappers were travelling in a white
Bolero. This discrepancy goes to the root of
the matter, inasmuch as the very vehicle in
which the kidnapper had travelled is itself in
doubt. There is no evidence supporting the
case of the prosecution. The entire case of
the prosecution is rested on the statement of
CW.4/PW.3 which cannot be considered due
to several inconsistencies in the evidence of
CW.4/PW.3.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
9.2. On the above facts, he again reiterates that
this Court ought to set aside the order of
conviction and dismiss the proceedings.
10. It is in the above background that we have been
called upon to re-appreciate the evidence on
record to ascertain if the prosecution has proved
its case against the accused rendering the accused
guilty of the offences as alleged against them.
11. CW.1/PW.1-Manjula is the mother of the
kidnapped victim, who gave the complaint with the
jurisdictional police, in her deposition she has
stated that:
11.1. CW.4/PW.3 is her son and CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi is her husband. CW.4/PW.3
was studying in 5th grade at Bensons English
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Medium School situate in Yamanapur near
Kakati, Belagavi.
11.2. Everyday her son boards the school bus at
the kurlon bus stop in Mahantesh Nagar at
8.30 a.m., after completing school he would
alight from the school bus at the same bus
stop at around 4.30 p.m. She would normally
go to the bus stop to pick her son and bring
him home.
11.3. On 07.11.2012 when she was on the way to
pick up her son, she met three other students
who travelled in the same bus as her son,
namely, CW.8/PW.5-Ramya, CW.9/PW.9-
Sannidhi and Naman who were accompanied
by Naman's grandfather CW.7/PW.4-
Vasantha Babu and Ramya's grandmother
CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva. At that time, Naman's
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
grandfather- CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu had
told her that on the way back a person
wearing a monkey cap had got down from a
Scorpio vehicle, saw the identity card of
CW.4/PW.3, picked him up and put him up in
the car and the car went towards P & T
quarters.
11.4. On coming to know of the same, CW.1/PW.1-
Manjula called her husband CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi, who was not in town at
that time and was carrying out a contract
work at Chandaragi village. He had asked her
to immediately go to the police station and
lodge a complaint. It is in furtherance of this,
CW.1/PW.1-Manjula lodged a complaint as
per Ex.P.1. She has identified her signature
as Ex.P.1(a).
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
11.5. Thereafter the police came near her house
around 6.30 p.m. on the same day and drew
spot panchanama. Her husband came back
later. On the next day morning, her husband
received information about CW.4/PW.3's
school identity card was found near
Gaddanakeri village. Hence, CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi along with the police went
there. At that time CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi received a call from a stranger stating
that CW.4/PW.3 is with them and that they
demanded a sum of Rs.20 crores for his
release.
11.6. At 12.00 noon on 12.11.2012, the police
came to her house and informed her that her
son, CW.4/PW.3 was found. At 7.30 a.m. on
13.11.2012 the police brought her son
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
CW.4/PW.3 and her husband CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi to the house. Then her son
has informed her that accused No.1-
Hemachandra who worked at CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi's site along with 6 others
had taken him to a shed in the forest in
Kallur in Andhra Pradesh. On 13.11.2012 she
was asked to come to the police station and
identify the accused. She has identified
accused No.6-Siddalinga who was working as
a driver for her husband, as also accused
No.1-Hemachandra who was working at the
site of her husband.
11.7. During the course of cross-examination, she
has admitted that she is a M.A. graduate. Her
marriage took place in 1997. Her son was
studying in Bensons School from 1st grade
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
and there are 5 other children in the
neighborhood who are studying in the said
school.
11.8. Ahe has denied that her husband is a middle-
class man. She has stated that he is upper
middle-class man. They have four cars, JCB,
Hitachi vehicles etc. She has denied that her
son had gone to relatives' house. She has
also denied that her son left the house on
account of CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi's
nagging. She has denied any knowledge of
any disputes between CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi and his first wife and
children. She has denied that there was any
quarrel between her husband and his first
wife over the property. On enquiry as regards
the number of drivers and employees working
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
for her husband CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi, she states that she is not aware.
11.9. On 08.11.2012 at about 8.30 a.m. her
husband received a call from someone stating
that they had found her son's ID card and
school bag near Gaddanakeri cross. Hence,
her husband went to Gaddanakeri cross,
where he got a call demanding ransom
amount. She denies that a false complaint
has been lodged on account of her husband
having close affiliation with the
Superintendent of Police, Belagavi and she
being acquainted with the wife of the said
Superintendent of Police. She admits that the
place near the bus stop is very crowded. She
has denied that a false complaint has been
filed. She has withstood the test of cross
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
examination and has supported the case of
the prosecution.
12. CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva Basappa Akkisagara, who is
the grandmother of Ramya, a student who travels
along with CW.4/PW.3 to the school in the school
bus.
12.1. Though she has stated that after all the
children got down from the bus, they were all
going towards the house, at that time, she
heard a scream and turned around. She
stated that she does not know what
happened then. Hence, she was treated as
hostile and cross-examined by the Public
Prosecutor.
12.2. In the cross-examination, she has denied all
of the allegation made in the statement given
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
by her to the police. She does not support the
case of the prosecution.
13. CW.4/PW.3 is the minor who was kidnapped. The
trial Court after ascertaining that he is capable of
deposing has recorded his evidence, in which he
has stated that
13.1. On 07.11.2012 he went to the school at 8.30
a.m. in a bus which he boarded at Kurlon bus
stop when his mother had come to drop him
at the bus stop. On the same day at 4.30
p.m. when he returned back from the school
and when he along with his other friends got
down from the bus, his motherCW.1/PW.1-
Manjula had not come to the bus stop to take
him home.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
13.2. After getting down from the bus, when he
along with other children, namely, Naman
along with his grandfather CW.7/PW.4-
Vasantha Babu and CW.8/PW.5-Ramya along
with her grandmother CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva
were going towards the house near Akkana
Marga Cross, one white coloured Scorpio
came in front of him, stopped near him and
one person wearing a monkey cap came near
him, saw his identity card and immediately
took him inside the Scorpio, he closed his
mouth forcibly which resulted in his upper
tooth getting broken and thereafter the
vehicle moved towards P & T quarters.
13.3. He has stated that there were 7 persons in
the vehicle, out of whom he identified
accused No.1-Hemachandra who was working
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
with his father. He identified accused No.1-
Hemachandra in the Court while deposition
was being recorded. He also identified 5 other
accused who were sitting in the Court. He has
stated that one person was not in Court.
13.4. When the vehicle reached Chikkodi at that
time he stated accused No.1-Hemachandra
had given injection on his left hand, due to
which he slept. At 7.30 a.m, when he woke
up, he came to know that they had reached
Tirupathi in Andhra Pradesh.
13.5. Thereafter, the accused persons have taken
him to Kallur forest and kept him in a house,
they reached Kallur forest in the night. He
does not know the time. He has stated that
accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.2-P.Ravi were staying with him in the said
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
forest house and the remaining accused went
away in an autorickshaw.
13.6. On the next day evening i.e. on 09.11.2012
accused No.1-Hemachandra gave him a
mobile phone which was already switched on
and asked him to talk with his father
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi and request
him to pay the amount demanded for his
release. Hence, he spoke to his father
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi and asked him
to give the amount to the accused. Then his
father CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi agreed
to give the amount.
13.7. Thereafter on 12.11.2012 in the afternoon,
Belagavi police along with the driver Sunil
came to the house in Kallur forest, arrested
accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
No.2-P.Ravi at that place and took him in
their car. They came to Pavagadh, where the
police have arrested two more persons and
then they came to Tumkur on 12.11.2012,
where his father was present and thereafter,
they came to Belagavi on 13.11.2012 at 7.00
a.m.
13.8. When the police took him to the police
station, they showed all the accused and
asked him if they were the persons who were
in the vehicle when they took him. He has
identified all the accused. Thereafter he was
sent home.
13.9. CW.4/PW.3 was cross-examined by the
counsels for accused No.1-Hemachandra and
accused No.2-P.Ravi. In the cross-
examination, he has stated that he does not
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
know the exact time of arrival at Kallur
forest. On 15.11.2012 more than 10 people
had come to Kallur forest house. The accused
had removed his uniform and given him one
pair of new dress. All the police people who
came on 12.11.2012 were wearing civil
dresses and not uniform. He has stated that
his statement was recorded on 13.11.2012
and not earlier in the forest house at Kallur.
He states that the police first arrested
accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.2-P.Ravi and then while coming out on the
road they arrested one more person. He
denies that accused No.1-Hemachandra and
accused No.2-P.Ravi stayed with him and
police had arrested accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi in the
Kallur forest area.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
13.10. The police found a knife in the house in Kallur
as also his clothes, along with clothes and
bags of the other accused.
13.11. He admits that his upper tooth was already
loose. He has denied that he had seen all the
accused for the first time in the police station
after returning from Tumkur to Belagavi. He
has voluntarily stated that he has seen all of
them in Scorpio vehicle when he was
kidnapped. Apart from this, nothing much
was elicited from him during the course of
the cross-examination.
14. CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu is the grandfather of
Naman, a child who would travel with CW.4/PW.3
in the bus. He has supported the case of the
prosecution. Except to state that the vehicle was
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Bolero instead of a Scorpio, he has denied all other
suggestions which were put across to him.
15. CW.8/PW.5-Ramya is another student who
travelled along with CW.4/PW.3 in the bus. The
trial Court recorded her statement after
ascertaining that she was able to depose and
understand the proceedings. She has stated that
she heard the screams of her friend CW.4/PW.3
and when she turned back, she saw a car going.
She does not know what happened to CW.4/PW.3
and she was treated as hostile. Nothing much was
elicited from her.
16. CW.5/PW.6-Baramappa Jangappa Jogi is the father
of the minor kidnapped victim, in his deposition he
has stated that:
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
16.1. As regards how his son was going to school
and coming back to home in the manner as
stated by CW.1/PW.1-Manjula. Accused No.1-
Hemachandra was working as a supervisor
with him and accused No.6-Siddalinga was
the driver of his car.
16.2. On 07.11.2012 he left home at 8.30 a.m. to
his site at Murakatanal and was working at
the said site. At about 5.00 p.m. he received
a call from his wife CW.1/PW.1-Manjula
informing that about 4.45 p.m. CW.4/PW.3's
friends and CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu had
informed her that CW.4/PW.3 on his way
back home from school was kidnapped near
Gokul house in a Scorpio car.
16.3. He asked her to lodge a complaint
immediately, he got into his car and
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
immediately rushed back home. When his
wife informed him about what had happened,
about she having lodged the complaint with
the Police, he thereafter went to the police
station met CW.28/PW.22-PSI, Malamaruthi
Police Station and CPI. He gave a statement
and got back home.
16.4. On the next date i.e. on 08.11.2012 at 8.30
a.m. he received a call from CW.11/PW.8-
Prahlad Chachdi stating that his father-in-law
CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Revadi had found
CW.4/PW.3's school bag and identity card at
Gaddanakeri Cross. Since CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi phone number was on
CW.4/PW.3's identity card, CW.11/PW.8-
Prahlad Chachdi had called CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi's mobile. On receiving the
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
said call, CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi
informed the police and they took him to the
said place and met CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad
Chachdi, who had called his father-in-law
CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Revadi, who in turn
handed over CW.4/PW.3's school bag and
identity card which he had found when he
went to graze the sheep. The police searched
the nearby places and did not find anything.
16.5. At that time, accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy
had called him on his mobile and stated that
CW.4/PW.3 was in his possession and if Rs.20
crores is given he will release CW.4/PW.3. At
that time CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi asked
to speak to his son CW.4/PW.3 for assurance.
When they gave phone to CW.4/PW.3, he
spoke to him and told him to give the money
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
so that they would release him. He states
that the phone number from which
CW.4/PW.3 spoke was 9494072615. (At that
juncture, the lawyers of the accused noticing
something had been written on the left palm
of CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi raised the
issue. When the Court asked CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi to show the left palm, there
the phone numbers 9494072615,
8897993125 and 9908919030 were written).
16.6. He had informed his son that he would come
and get him. Accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy
had called him from time to time and
informed him about the location where the
money was to be taken to. He has stated that
the police had given instructions that he
should not leave the house and if anybody
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
were to call him, the same should be
informed to the police.
16.7. Again in the afternoon around 1.30 to 2.00
p.m. he got a call from accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy asking him to come to
Bengaluru with the money which he informed
to the police. On the same day between 5.30
to 6.00 p.m. CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi
along with CW.25/PW.15-PSI, Khanapur and
2-3 staff from Malamaruti police station left
for Bengaluru in a TATA Safari car and a
police Jeep, and reached Bengaluru at 5.00
a.m., stayed at a lodge. Later, in the
afternoon he received a call from accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy asking him to come
to Tumkur and also enquired whether the
money has been arranged for. CW.5/PW.6-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Bharamappa Jogi replied that he could
arrange only Rs.15 crores, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy asked him to wait for his
call.
16.8. He had arrived at Tumkur on the same day
evening, stayed there for some time. When
they were at Tumkur, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy called him at 1.30 p.m. on
11.11.2012 to get the money and come to
Pavagadh. When CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi had informed that since it is a naxalite
active area, he would not come there. At
which point of time, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy had asked CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi to come to Madugiri. At
4.00 p.m. he received another call from
accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy asking him
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
to come to Pavagadh for which CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi said he cannot go to any
place on the whims and fancies of Accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy and went back to
Tumkur.
16.9. On 12.11.2012 he came to know that other
group of policemen who had gone to Chittoor
had secured his son in a forest area of Kallur
in Chittoor District. He spoke to his son who
was with the police. He has stated that
accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy and his
accomplice were arrested in Pavagadh and
brought to Tumkur, from there they took him
and left to Belagavi in the evening on the
same day and arrived at Belagavi on
13.11.2012 morning.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
16.10. He has deposed that on 13.11.2012 the
police handed over his son to his custody
between 9.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. When he
noticed that one of the teeth of his son had
broken and sedative injection had been given
to him. He has further stated that all the
conversation that he had with the accused
had been recorded on his mobile phone and
he had handed over the phone to the police.
At this time, he had identified the phone as
MO.1. Since the phone was not charged, the
Court directed the phone to be charged and
called an expert to play the conversation
recorded on the phone. Then it was found
that there was no memory card in the phone
and the memory card was missing.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
16.11. CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi was cross-
examined by the counsel for accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi.
During the course of cross-examination, he
has admitted that he had gone to Malamaruti
police station about 3-4 times which is
located at about 1 k.m from his house. Many
questions were asked as regards
information/complaint lodged by the police,
travel from Belagavi to Bengaluru and
thereafter to Tumkuru and the phone calls
received, the witnesses stuck to his
statement.
16.12. He has denied the suggestion that accused
No.1-Hemachandra was not working with
him. As regards his mobile phone, he
answered that he has given mobile phone on
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
14.11.2012 to the police. He has denied that
it was not his mobile phone that is produced
before the Court. He has admitted that
CW.4/PW.3 is the son of second wife
CW.1/PW.1-Manjula.
16.13. On being cross-examined by accused No.3-
Srinivasulu's counsel, he has denied that
accused No.3-Srinivasulu has nothing to do
with the case, he has denied that he has seen
accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy for the first
time in the Court. He has answered that the
police had shown him in Tumkur stating that
he is accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy. Other
than that, nothing much was elicited from
him during the course of cross-examination.
He has withstood the test of cross-
examination.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
17. CW.14/PW.7 Kaboor is the PSI, DCIB, Belagavi. He
has stated that
17.1. On 09.11.2012 on the orders of
Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, he was
directed to co-operate with the Inspector of
Police, Malamaruti Police Station. Hence, he
took CWs.17 and 19 and went to Tumkur and
reported to CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakanth
Reddy, P.I, Malamaruthi Police Station. He
has stated about the Inspector of Police,
Malamaruti Police having called him to find
the accused of the abductor.
17.2. The accused are said to have telephoned the
father of the abducted boy and were
demanding money and had also threatened
that they will kill the boy if they did not pay
the money.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
17.3. They have identified the location on the basis
of the mobile phone calls made by the
accused. Police personnel were sent to
Tumkur, Pavagadh, Madugiri and
Madakushira.
17.4. He went to Bengaluru and obtained
information from CCB Cell. Thereafter went to
Chittoor, where they got accused No.2-P.Ravi
in Marvapalli village, who on enquiry
informed him that he and 6 other people
have abducted CW.4/PW.3, and was ready to
show the place where the boy was located.
Accused No.2-P.Ravi took them to the house
in Kallur forest, where CW.4/PW.3, accused
No.1-Hemachandra and accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar were present, who were taken
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
into custody and from whom three mobile
phones were seized.
17.5. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that he has never recorded the
statement of CW.4/PW.3. That the
Superintendent of Police, Belagavi had orally
directed him to co-operate with the Police
officials of Malmaruti Police Station.
17.6. Normally persons assigned in DCIB do not
wear uniforms. He stated about his having
come to Tumkur on 09.11.2012 prior to that
having gone to Bengaluru and obtained
information from CCB Centre, about having
left Tumkur on 10.11.2012 reaching
Bengaluru at 6.00 p.m. and thereafter
reaching Chittoor on 11.11.2012 at 6.00
a.m., of him having nabbed accused No.2-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
P.Ravi from his house in Marvapalli in chittoor
on 12.11.2012 at 8.00 a.m. in the morning.
He has also stated about accused No.2-P.Ravi
having given information about having
kidnapped CW.4/PW.3, along with 6 others.
Accused No.2-P.Ravi agreeing to show where
CW.4/PW.3 was held, on reaching Kallur
forest area and surrounding the house when
they saw accused No.1-Hemachandra and
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar.-Navin with
CW.4/PW.3 in the house, immediately the
accused were arrested and CW.4/PW.3 was
secured and returned to Malmaruti Police
Station.
17.7. During the course of cross-examination,
many suggestions were put across, which he
denied. He has withstood the test of cross-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
examination and supported the case of the
prosecution.
18. CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Vitthal Chachadi denied
having found any bag and or of CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi coming to his house. He stated
that he does not know anything about the case. He
was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the
Public Prosecutor. During the course of cross-
examination, he has denied giving statement to
the police. He did not support the case of the
prosecution.
19. CW.8/PW.9-Sannidi Suresh Tubachi being a minor
witness, the Court verified as to whether he could
answer the questions properly. Upon the witness
answering the questions properly and ascertaining
his capacity to give evidence, his evidence was
recorded. In his deposition he has stated that
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
19.1. He lives with his father, mother, grandfather
and grandmother, studying in 7th grade.
Every day he would go to school. In 2012 he
was studying in 4th grade. he knows
CW.4/PW.3, Naman and CW.8/PW.5-Ramya.
CW.4/PW.3 studying in 5th grade and
CW.8/PW.5-Ramya in 4th grade and Naman in
2nd grade. He has stated that Ramya's
grandmother CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva would
come to drop CW.8/PW.5-Ramya to school,
CW.1/PW.1-Manjula to drop CW.4/PW.3 and
Naman's grandfather CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha
Babu would come to drop him.
19.2. On 6th or 7th of November-2012 after school
no one had come to pick him and
CW.4/PW.3. CW.8/PW.5-Ramya was picked
up by her grandmother CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
and Naman by his grandfather CW.7/PW.4-
Vasantha Babu. When CW.4/PW.3,
CW.8/PW.5-Ramya and Naman were walking
towards Akkamma Road, a Scorpio car came
in front of them and some persons covering
their faces kidnapped CW.4/PW.3 after
recognizing his identity card. He did not know
the number of the vehicle, but the car sped
away towards P & T quarters. He has also
deposed about the information being
provided to CW.1/PW.1-Manjula in this
regard.
19.3. During the course of cross-examination, he
has denied all the suggestions put across to
him. He has withstood the test of the cross-
examination and supported the case of the
prosecution.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
20. CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Dyamappa Revadi is the
father-in-law of CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Vitthal
Chachadi. He has denied having found any items.
He was treated as hostile and cross-examined by
the Public Prosecutor. He has denied having given
any statement to the police. Nothing much was
elicited from him during the course of cross-
examination. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
21. CW.16/PW.11-Maruti Sadeppa Chavadi is the
Police Constable who was working in Malamaruti
Police Station at the relevant time, in his
deposition he has stated that
21.1. The police came to know about the accused
being in Chittoor from the location of the
telephone. Hence, they went to Chittoor and
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
nabbed accused No.2-P.Ravi with the help of
local police.
21.2. On enquiry, accused No.2-P.Ravi had
informed that he along with 6 people have
abducted CW.4/PW.3, who were now in Kallur
forest area. Immediately, he and others went
to the said area and secured CW.4/PW.3 as
also the accused.
21.3. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that he has never seen the
accused together before they left Belagavi.
They do not know the language that the
accused spoke nor did they have any
photographs. He has denied that he has
deposed falsely. Other than that he has
withstood the test of the cross-examination
and supported the case of the prosecution.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
22. CW.20/PW.12-Ashraj Ali Mohammad Ghori Aktar is
the Police Constable at Malamaruti Police Station,
in his deposition he has stated that
22.1. He came to know about kidnapping of
CW.4/PW.3. They went there and he along
with certain other police persons went from
Belagavi to Bagalkot to find the accused.
From Bagalkot they came to Tumkur and
thereafter to Bengaluru, where there was
another team of police who had arrived on
09.11.2012.
22.2. He has detailed out the persons
accompanying him as also the police already
present in Bengaluru from Tumkur.
22.3. On the basis of the mobile tower location,
they went to Pavagadh and then to Chittoor.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
In Chittoor they did not find the accused.
Hence, they went to Marvapalli, where they
found accused No.2-P.Ravi who had informed
that CW.4/PW.3 was in Kallur forest area and
then they went there. They found accused
No.1-Hemachandra and accused No.3-
Srinivasulu. They were secured so was
CW.4/PW.3, thereafter they took them all
back to Belagavi.
22.4. Many questions were asked during the course
of cross-examination as regards the entries
made in the dairy, roll call, manner of travel,
etc. The witness has answered them
properly.
22.5. He has stated that on 09.11.2012 accused
No.2-P.Ravi, accused, No.1-Hemachandra
and accused No.3-Srinivasulu were taken into
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
custody on 10.11.2012 at 2.00 p.m. and left
for Belagavi. He has stated that CW.4/PW.3
did not accompany their team to Belagavi. He
does not know how CW.4/PW.3 was taken to
the station on 11.11.2012. He did not go for
duty for few days after he got back.
22.6. In view of the above, he has partly supported
the case of the prosecution.
23. CW.22/PW.13-Shamsundar Ramachandra
Doddanayak is stated to be a Police Constable
working at Tilakawadi Police Station, in his
deposition he has stated that
23.1. Upon the abduction of CW.4/PW.3, teams
were formed to find the boy at the orders of
the superiors, which included formation of a
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
team to go to Tumkur of which he was a part
of, where they met another team.
23.2. Thereafter, the team of CW.22/PW.13 went
to Pavgadh, but they did not find the
accused.
23.3. Thereafter from Pavagadh they went to
Chittoor on 12.11.2012, where they had been
informed that another team had arrested
accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy, accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused No.6-
Siddalinga were arrested, hence they
returned to Pavagadh.
23.4. Accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy and accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar were arrested in
Pavagadh. On 12.11.2012, accused No.6-
Siddalinga was arrested at Kodliwad,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Savadatti and all three were presented before
the Police Inspector on 13.11.2012.
23.5. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that he had not seen accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy before they were taken
into custody. He has denied that he had not
participated with the team. He has withstood
the test of the cross-examination and
supported the case of the prosecution.
24. CW.18/PW.14-A.B.Navinkumar is the Police
Constable at Khadebazar Police Station, in his
deposition he has stated that
24.1. He was directed to go to Tumkur on
09.11.2012 with other police persons. They
left Belagavi and reached Tumkur on
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
09.11.2012 and thereafter to Chittoor, where
with the help of local police they caught
accused No.2-P.Ravi who confessed of having
committed the offence and stated that
kidnapped child was in Kallur forest. Then the
officers of the team went to forest with
accused No.2-P.Ravi, two more accused were
found and the boy was secured. The two
accused found were accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.3-Srinivasulu.
24.2. All the three accused were arrested then
interrogated and brought to Belagavi.
24.3. During the course of the cross-examination,
he has admitted that the Police Inspector had
asked him to go to Tumkur and that there
was nothing in writing in this regard. He
denied that accused No.2-P.Ravi was arrested
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
by Tumkur police. He denied rest of the
suggestions. He has withstood the test of the
cross-examination and supported the case of
the prosecution.
25. CW.25/PW.15-Dhiraj Baburao Shinde was the PSI
of Khanapur Police Station at the relevant time, in
his deposition he has stated that
25.1. On 09.11.2012, SP, Belagavi had ordered him
to report to Malamaruti Police Station. He
along with certain others and CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi had left Belagavi and had
come to Tumkur on 09.11.2012.
25.2. The accused were making phone calls to
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi's mobile phone.
Mobile phone of the accused was traced on
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
the basis of mobile phone signals of the
accused and their team went to Pavagadh.
25.3. He has stated about another team having told
him about the arrest of accused No.2-P.Ravi,
and based on this, his team had found
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy in Pavagadh,
securing them into custody.
25.4. He has further stated about how his team
having reached Tumkur along with accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy then coming to Savadatti
Taluk secured accused No.6-Siddalinga and
thereafter had come to Belagavi on
13.11.2012.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
25.5. When they reached Belagavi along with
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and accused No.6-
Siddalinga another team had come to
Belagavi with accused No.1-Hemachandra,
accused No.2-P.Ravi and accused No.3-
Srinivasulu and he has identified all the
accused in the court.
25.6. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that the investigation details were
mentioned in the station register other than
that he has no records.
25.7. He has denied all the suggestions made to
him. He has denied that accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy were not taken into
custody in Pavagadh. Other questions have
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
been asked were regarding the manner of
conveyance, etc. and the persons who had
travelled with him, which the witness
answered properly. He has denied that he has
given false testimony. He has withstood the
test of cross-examination and supported the
case of the prosecution.
26. CW.24/PW.16-Dharmaraj Balakrishna Shinde is the
Constable working in the office of the
Superintendent of Police, in his deposition he has
stated that
26.1. From 2008 to 2012 he was working in the
technical cell. He had training and expertise
in locating a person on the basis of a phone
number.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
26.2. In November-2012, Malamaruti police made a
requisition to the office of the Superintendent
of Police, to trace the details of certain phone
numbers from which CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi had received the calls. Another
requisition, was also made by them seeking
for CDR's of few more phone numbers. [The
CDR's were sought to be marked in evidence
when the accused objected to the same on
the ground that it does not conform to
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The
Trial Court taking this into consideration had
marked them subject to consideration of the
objections in future as Exs.P.7 to P.16.]
26.3. During the course of the cross-examination,
he has stated that he does not know the
Investigating Officer in the case. The PSI,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Malmaruti Police Station had sent a letter to
SP Office requesting CDR's and he has sent a
reply through E-mail and not by physical
copy. He has stated that he has received
Exs.P.7 to P.18 from the service provider via
E-mail, which he has taken print outs and
given to the Malmaruti Police station. He
states that on 13.11.2012 he did not know
the name of the accused or to whom any of
those numbers belonged to. He has further
stated that all the numbers are from different
service providers. He is unable to state the
dates on which Exs.P.7 to P.18 were
received. He has also denied that he has not
properly identified incoming and outgoing
calls.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
26.4. He has admitted that the CDR's cannot be
obtained without SP's permission. He has
obtained the information from seven service
providers. He has written the names on each
CDR on the basis of the names given by the
Investigating Officer. Apart from this, he has
withstood the test of the cross-examination
27. CW.13/PW.17-Ravindra Shivasangappa Shirur was
the Police Inspector of Shahapur Police Station at
the relevant time, in his deposition he has stated
that
27.1. On 07.11.2012 the Superintendent of Police,
Belagavi had ordered him to assist the
Malamaruti Police.
27.2. He travelled to Tumkur on 09.11.2012, where
several officers had already arrived. He states
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
that there were three teams in total. He has
stated that CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi got
a phone call from the abductors who were
demanding money. Since CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi used speaker phone, he
had heard the kidnappers demanding Rs.20
crores and that the boy would be murdered if
the money is not paid. He has stated that the
calls to PW.6 were traced by CW.14/PW.7-
PSI, DCIB and CW.25/PW.15-PSI, Khanapur.
27.3. He has stated about another call having been
received on 11.11.2012 demanding money,
When CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi wanted
to speak to his son, a short time after that, a
call came after and CW.4/PW.3 spoke with
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi. CW.14/PW.7-
PSI, DCIB and CW.25/PW.15-PSI, Khanapur
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
had ascertained that accused's calls were
coming from Pavagada and Chittoor.
27.4. Hence, a team was sent to Chittoor in Andhra
Pradesh and another team to Pavagadh. They
came to know about accused No.2-P.Ravi was
in Marvapalli. When they contacted him and
questioned him, accused No.2-P.Ravi
confessed that he along with six others have
abducted CW.4/PW.3. He gave the names of
other culprits and location of CW.4/PW.3.
Hence, they went to Kallur forest area with
accused No.2-P.Ravi. where CW.4/PW.3 was
restrained, CW.4/PW.3 was secured and
accused No.1-hemachandra and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu, who were with CW.4/PW.3
were arrested. All the three accused were
taken and came to Tumkur where
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi was waiting,
thereafter everyone came to Belagavi.
27.5. During the course of cross-examination by
the counsel for accused No.1-Hemachandra
and accused No.2-P.Ravi, he has stated that
he has given a statement at 11.00 a.m. on
13.11.2012. He has denied that there is no
demand for ransom made. On 10.11.2012
when CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi was with
him, his mobile phone had received two calls
and no other calls had come. He has denied
that he has not given statement on
11.11.2012.
27.6. He has again reiterated that two calls were
received on 11.11.2012 by CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi in his presence. In all, on
10th and 11th he has stated that CW.5/PW.6-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Bharamappa Jogi has received four calls. He
has reiterated that accused No.2-P.Ravi
showed them to the hut in the Kallur forest
where CW.4/PW.3 was kept. He has stated
that accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu did not ran away since they
had nowhere to run.
27.7. He has denied all the suggestions put to him.
He has answered various questions as
regards the investigation, distance,
maintenance of records, etc. Suffice to say
that he has supported the case of the
prosecution. He has withstood the test of the
cross-examination. Nothing much was elicited
during the course of the cross-examination to
support the case of the defence.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
28. CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakant Gangadarappa
Nandareddi was the Police Inspector, DSB unit
Belagavi at the relevant point of time, in his
deposition he has stated about
28.1. How all the teams were constituted and the
teams having gone to different places, not
having received any information on
07.11.2012. On 08.11.2012 he went to
Tumkur, Pavagadh and Madukushira.
However, no information was found.
28.2. On 09.11.2012 he came to know that a caller
had called CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi and
demanded money and mobile number from
which the call had been received was
operating in Chittoor.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
28.3. CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi receiving a call
and since CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi had
put it on speaker phone, he had heard the
caller demanding Rs.20 crores. He had heard
about the direction to bring Rs.20 crores to
Madugiri on 11.11.2012.
28.4. Since the call had been received from
Chittoor, he along with his team went to
Chittoor and Marvapalli village with the help
of Chittoor police, caught accused No.2-
P.Ravi. He identified accused No.2-P.Ravi in
the Court.
28.5. On interrogation, accused No.2-P.Ravi
confessed to the commission of crime,
kidnapping of CW.4/PW.3 and restraining him
in a house in Kallur forest. They went to the
said house, secured the boy and arrested
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
accused No.1-Hemachandra, accused No.2-
P.Ravi and accused No.3-Srinivasulu. He
identified them in the Court. He has stated
that thereafter they came to Belagavi with
three accused and CW.4/PW.3 and thereafter
interrogated the three accused. They found
that they had three mobile phones and two
sim cards and three knifes, one each.
28.6. On being cross-examined by the counsel for
accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.2-P.Ravi, he has stated that they have
gone in a private vehicle. He has admitted
that no panchanama was done at the house
in Kallur forest, that the police of Chittoor did
not come to Kallur forest though they had
come up till Marvapalli. He has stated that he
has not drawn up any mahazars in Marvapalli
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
and Chittoor. He is unable to state as to how
many mobile phones and sim cards were
found with the accused and which sim card
belongs to which mobile.
28.7. He has stated that when CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi came to Tumkur on
10.11.2012, he received a call from the
kidnappers demanding Rs.20 crores, he is
aware of the said demand. He has stated that
he came to know about accused No.2-P.Ravi
on the basis of the information given by the
informant in the CCB.
28.8. When he went to Kallur forest house, accused
No.2-P.Ravi was not with CW.4/PW.3. He
states that he has arrested accused No.1-
Hemachandra, accused No.2-P.Ravi and
accused No.3-Srinivasulu from the said spot
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
and handed over them to CW.28/PW.22-PSI,
Malamaruthi Police Station, but arrest memo
was not given.
28.9. He has supported the case of the prosecution.
Nothing much was elicited from him during
the course of the cross-examination to
support the case of the defence.
29. CW.27/PW.19-Dr.Malakappa Satappa
Mundaginahal is a paramedic working in
emergency department in the BIMS hospital. He
has stated that he had examined CW.4/PW.3 on
13.11.2012 to check if CW.4/PW.3 had been given
any sedative, he had examined CW.4/PW.3 at 2
pm that day and has not found any injection mark
or any visible injuries on CW.4/PW.3's body. He
has stated that CW.4/PW.3 had informed him
about his kidnap on 07.11.2012 at 4.45 p.m.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
30. CW.10/PW.20-Suraj Gundu Motekar, he is the
manager of Pai Hotel in Belagavi, in his deposition
he has stated that
30.1. He has deposed that whenever a customer
had to take a room at the lodge, it is the
norm to collect the ID card and photo from
them at the time of checking into the room.
He has produced the guest register of the
hotel which is marked at Ex.P.23 and
identified the entry made in the register on
06.11.2012. He has stated that a compact
disk containing CCTV footage of the hotel for
the relevant period had been given. When the
CD was sought to be played, it could not be
played since the CD was cracked.
30.2. In the cross-examination, he denies that he
has not given the CD or the register to the
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
police. He denies that Ex.P.23 is not signed
by him. He has however withstood the test of
the cross-examination and supported the
case of the prosecution. Nothing contrary
was elicited from him during the course of
cross-examination.
31. CW.3/PW.21-Sunil Basappa Sannasatti is a witness
to various mahazars. He has however denied the
contents of all the mahazars, though he has
admitted his signatures. He was treated as hostile
and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He
has denied all the suggestions put to him during
the course of cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor. He has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
32. CW.28/PW.22-Sunil Balasaheb Patil is the Circle
Police Inspector of Malamaruti Police Station during
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
the relevant time who carried out the investigation.
In his deposition he has stated that
32.1. He has registered the complaint received
from PW.1 as Crime No.448/2012. He has
recorded the statements of the eyewitnesses
CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva, CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha
Babu, CW.8/PW.5-Ramya and CW.9/PW.9-
Sannidhi.
32.2. He was present when CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi received a phone call on
08.11.2012 when the person calling had
demanded a sum of Rs.20 crores to release
CW.4/PW.3, he has recorded the statement
of CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi in this
regard.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
32.3. He had formed three teams for tracing out
the abducted CW.4/PW.3. He has deposed as
regards finding of CW.4/PW.3's identity card
and school bag, by the father-in-law of
CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi, about
CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi having called
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi, about he
having accompanied CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi to the said place and having received the
school bag and identity card and returning to
the police station.
32.4. About how on 13.11.2012 the accused
abducted CW.4/PW.3 who presented before
him. CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakant Nandareddy
has given a report as regards accused No.1-
Hemachandra, accused No.2-P.Ravi and
accused No.3-Srinivasulu. CW.25/PW.15-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Dhiraj Babaurao Shinde, PSI, Khanapur has
given a report as regards accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and accused No.6-
Siddalinga. He states about having recorded
the voluntary statement of all the accused.
Accused No.1-Hemachandra had stated about
his having taken a room in Pai Lodge,
Belagavi near Main Bus Stand. Hence, he
along with pancha witnesses reached there
and conducted panchanama, questioned the
CW.10/PW.20- Manager of Pai Hotel, who
informed about accused No.1-Hemachandra
having stayed in the lodge on 06.11.2012
and furnished the CCTV footage and register
of the lodge. Panchanama of the room where
accused No.1-Hemachandra had stayed was
drawn up. He has stated about the recovery
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
of the mobile phones, sim cards and knifes
from the accused. He had sent CW.4/PW.3 to
the District Civil Hospital, Belagavi for
medical check up, recorded a statement of
the CW.10/PW.20- Manager of Pai Hotel,
Belagavi as also statements of various police
officers, constables and head constables, who
were part of the investigation team.
32.5. He has stated that on 14.11.2012 PW.6 had
given a mobile phone which was used to
converse with the accused which has been
identified as Ex.P.28. He has spoken of the
various seizures done. He has further stated
that accused No.7-Bhasha and accused No.8-
Manoj were absconding.
32.6. During the course of cross-examination, he
has stated that CW.1/PW.1-Manjula came to
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
the police station alone to lodge the
complaint. He went along with her to the spot
that the complainant showed him, conducted
spot panchanama in the presence of CW.2-
Namadeva and CW.3/PW.21-Sunil, the local
residents. FIR copy was filed with the CPI and
DSP and was giving information about the
case orally to his superiors. All the teams
were supervised by the Superintendent of
Police. He has denied that he has filed the
charge sheet at the instructions of his
superiors. He has denied any knowledge
about any property dispute between
CW.1/PW.1-Manjula and CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi.
32.7. He has denied the suggestion that the
property of PW.6 would not amount to more
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
than Rs.1 crore. He has denied that CDR's
are concocted. He has obtained CDR's from
the Nodal Officer, CDI (CW.24/PW.16-
D.B.Shinde). He has denied all the
suggestions put to him. He has withstood the
test of the cross-examination and supported
the case of the prosecution.
33. Before we appreciate the evidence in the matter, it
would be required for us to resolve the issue as
regards the production of certain Call Detail
Records (CDR) by the prosecution. This being so
for the reason that they were produced through
CW.24/PW.16 and marked as Exs.P.7 to P.18
subject to the objection raised by the accused that
the same were not accompanied by a certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
34. The contention of Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior
counsel is that the trial Court ought not to have
looked into the CDR's at Exs.P.7 to P.18 since it is
not in accordance with the requirement of Section
65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. In that he submits
that there ought to have been a certificate
produced under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, without such a certificate no
electronic evidence could not have been relied
upon by the trial Court. This aspect is no longer res
integra.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal,
(2020) 7 SCC 1 has extensively dealt with the
aspect of electronic evidence and the requirement
of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act. The said matter arose out of a
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
reference made by the Division Bench to a three
Judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has answered the reference at
para No.72, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
72. The reference is thus answered by stating that:
(a) Anvar P.V. (supra), as clarified by us
hereinabove, is the law declared by this Court on
Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The judgment in
Tomaso Bruno (supra), being per incuriam, does
not lay 80 down the law correctly. Also, the
judgment in SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2011 reported
as Shafi Mohammad (supra) and the judgment
dated 03.04.2018 reported as (2018) 5 SCC 311,
do not lay down the law correctly and are therefore
overruled.
(b) The clarification referred to above is that the
required certificate under Section 65B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the owner of a
laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile
phone, by stepping into the witness box and
proving that the concerned device, on which the
original information is first stored, is owned and/or
operated by him. In cases where the "computer"
happens to be a part of a "computer system" or
"computer network" and it becomes impossible to
physically bring such system or network to the
Court, then the only means of providing
information contained in such electronic record can
be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).
The last sentence in Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads
as "...if an electronic record as such is used as
primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence
Act..." is thus clarified; it is to be read without the
words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,..."
With this clarification, the law 81 stated in
paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need
to be revisited.
(c) The general directions issued in paragraph 62
(supra) shall hereafter be followed by courts that
deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their
preservation, and production of certificate at the
appropriate stage. These directions shall apply in
all proceedings, till rules and directions under
Section 67C of the Information Technology Act and
data retention conditions are formulated for
compliance by telecom and internet service
providers.
(d) Appropriate rules and directions should be
framed in exercise of the Information Technology
Act, by exercising powers such as in Section 67C,
and also framing suitable rules for the retention of
data involved in trial of offences, their segregation,
rules of chain of custody, stamping and record
maintenance, for the entire duration of trials and
appeals, and also in regard to preservation of the
meta data to avoid corruption. Likewise,
appropriate rules for preservation, retrieval and
production of electronic record, should be framed
as indicated earlier, after considering the report of
the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice's
Conference in April, 2016.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
36. In terms of sub-para (b) of para No.72, it is clear
that the certificate under Section 65-B(4) is
unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced by the owner of a laptop, computer or
computer or mobile phone by stepping into the
witness box and proving that the concerned device
on which the original information is stored, is
owned or operated by him.
37. In the present case, the CDR's have been produced
by CW.24/PW.16 B.B.Shinde police constable
(technical cell). He has categorically stated that on
a requisition received by him from Malamaruti
police station to trace the details of certain phone
numbers from which PW.5/CW.6-Bharamappa Jogi
had received the calls, he has written to the
concerned service providers who have furnished
the relevant details by E-mail and he has printed
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
the said reports received by him and produced it
before the Court. It is those reports which have
been marked as Exs.P.7 to P.18.
38. Since the CDR's were received by him via E-mail
on his computer and he has printed the said
documents and produced them before the Court, it
is clear that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Arjun Panditrao (supra), more
particularly sub-para (b) of para No.72, no further
certification would be required. Hence, we are of
the considered opinion that Exs.P.7 to P.18 which
though were marked subject to objection, the
objection do not stand in view of the decision in
Arjun Panditrao (Supra) and would form part of
the record and could be considered by us as
evidence on record.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
39. An analysis of the CDR's indicates that the accused
were corresponding with each other via their
mobile phones, which establishes that all of them
are known to each other and have formed an
unlawful assembly to abduct CW.4/PW.3.
40. A perusal of the CDR's would indicate the various
calls made by the accused amongst themselves as
also to PW6.
41. EXP.7 relates to the mobile no.9908919030 of
accused no.1-Hemachandra for a period from
November 1 to 27 of 2012. On 8.11.2011, the
record shows that Accused No.3-Srinivasalu had
telephoned from his mobile number 9885091618
to Accused No.1 T. Hemachandra to his mobile
no.9908919030 at 5-29pm and on 9.11.2012 at 5-
54pm and 5-57pm. These calls originated from
Chittoor district.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
42. ExP.8 relates to another mobile no.9494072615 of
accused no.1-Hemachandra for a period from
November 1 to 10 of 2012. accused no.1-
Hemachandra had called PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa
Jogi's Mobile Phone No. 9449644456 on 8.11.2012
at 5-33 pm, on 9.11.2012 at 3-14pm and on
10.11.2012 at 12-02pm. The calls made on
8.11.2012 and 9.11.2012 originated from
Shivajyothinagara, Tirupathi while the call made on
10.11.2012 originated from Mangalampeta,
Chittoor.
43. ExP.9 relates to mobile no.9441993418 of accused
no.2-P.Ravi for a period from November 1 to 13 of
2012.
43.1. On 7.11.2012 there were calls made between
accused no.2-P.Ravi and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu at 7-31am, 7-33am, 7-35am, 7-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
36am, 7-40am, 7-54am, 8-07am, 8-19am, 8-
22am, 8-25am, 8-30am, 8-34am, 4-11pm,
4-38pm, 4-40pm and 4-42pm. On the same
day calls between accused no.2-P.Ravi and
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar were made at
4-51pm, 4-55pm, 5-04pm, 5-14pm, 5-16pm,
5-19pm, 5-22pm, 5-37pm, 5-50pm, 6-22pm,
6-46pm, 7-02pm, 7-23pm, 8-20pm, 8-31pm,
10-05pm,10-06pm, 10-44pm.
43.2. On 8.11.2012 calls between accused no.2-
P.Ravi and accused No.4-Naveen Kumar were
made at 3-04am, 8-51am, 8-52am, 9-27am,
9-42am, 9-48am and 3-19am and the origin
of the calls were traced to Mangalapete,
Chittoor. On the same day calls between
accused no.2-P.Ravi and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu were made 11-30am, 12-39am,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
2-29pm, 3-16pm, 4-36pm and 4-49pm. The
origin of the calls were traced to
Damalacheruvu, Chittoor.
43.3. On 9.11.2012 calls were made between
accused no.2-P.Ravi and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu at 6-50am, 6-58am, 12-39pm, 1-
00pm, 1-19pm, 2-25pm, 2-59pm, 3-1pm, 3-
14pm, 3-17pm, 3-23pm, 3-27pm, 3-29pm
and 7-24pm. The calls were originating from
Damalacheruvu, Chittoor and
Shivajyothinagar, tirupathi
43.4. On 10.11.2012 calls were made between
accused no.2-P.Ravi and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu at 6-15am, 6-29am, 3-18pm and
3-40pm. The calls were originating from
Damalacheruvu, Chittoor.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
43.5. On 11.11.2012 calls were made between
accused no.2-P.Ravi and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu at 6-45am, 7-06am, 7-11am, 7-
16am, 8-30am, 11-04am, 12-28pm, 1-46pm,
2-25pm and 2-30pm. The calls were
originating from Damalacheruvu, Chittoor,
Ugranampalle, Chittoor and Kalrodpalli,
Chittoor.
44. ExP.10 relates to another mobile no.9000499893
of accused no.2-P.Ravi for a period from November
1 to 27 of 2012.
45. ExP.11 relates to mobile no.9440291618 of
Accused No.3-Srinivasalu for a period from
November 1 to 13 of 2012.
45.1. On 7.11.2012 Calls were made between
Accused No.3-Srinivasalu and accused no-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Narasimhamurthy (Ph No-9008788358) at 7-
37am and 5-08pm.
45.2. On 8.11.2012 calls were made between
Accused No.3-Srinivasalu and accused no.1-
Hemachandra(9908919030) at 3-17pm and
4-04pm. Calls were made between Accused
No.3-Srinivasalu and accused no.4-
Srinivasulu(9008603100) at 4-12pm, 4-20pm
and 7-30pm. The call originated from
Shivajyothinagara, Tirupathi.
45.3. On 9.11.2012 calls were made between
Accused No.3-Srinivasalu and accused no.1-
Hemachandra(9908919030) at 5-37pm. On
the same day calls between Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu and accused No.4-Srinivasulu
were made at 5-54pm, 5-57pm, ,7-44pm.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
These calls originated at Sivajyothinagar,
Tirupathi.
45.4. On 10.11.2012 Accused No.3-Srinivasalu got
a call from accused no.2-P.Ravi at 11-19am
originating at Damalacheruvu, Chittoor.
46. ExP.12 relates to another mobile no.9008603100
of accused No.4-Naveen Kumar for a period from
November 1 to 13 of 2012.
46.1. On 4.11.2012 calls were made between
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused
no.2-P.Ravi at 4-36pm and 7-0pm. The calls
originated from TN Kote, Pavgada.
46.2. On 5.11.2012 calls between accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi were
made at 4-24pm, 6-50pm and 11-15pm; and
between accused No.4-naveen kumar and
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
accused no.1-Hemachandra at 9-48pm. The
calls originated from TN Kote, Pavgada.
46.3. On 6.11.2012 calls between accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi were
made at 5-18am, 6-09am, 6-18am, 7-46am,
8-05am and 8-11am.
46.4. On the same day calls between accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy were made at 6-25pm, 6-
38pm, 6-41pm, 6-56pm, 7-12pm, 7-28pm,
7-42pm, 7-53pm, 8-00pm, 8-24pm, 8-28pm.
These calls originated at Ramdurg.
46.5. On 7.11.2012 calls were made between
accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy and accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar at 6-51am, 7-38am, 7-
57am, 8-21am, 8-29am, 8-33am, 8-34am, 8-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
55am, 4-30pm, 4-31pm, 4-46pm, 4-56pm,
5-06pm, 5-34pm, 5-36pm, 5-42pm5-43pm,
6-42pm, 6-56pm and 11-32pm.
46.6. On the same day calls between accused
No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi
were made at 4-51pm, 4-55pm, 5-04pm, 5-
14pm, 5-16pm, 5-19pm, 5-22pm, 5-38pm,
5-50pm, 6-22pm, 6-46pm, 7-02pm, 7-23pm,
8-20pm, 8-31pm, 11-05pm, 11-06pm and
11-44pm. These calls were originating from
Anjaneyanagar, Mahanteshnagara,
Gandhinagar, Yeragatti, Murgod, Tallur,
Ramdurg, Khadebazar, kottur and
Mummigatti.
46.7. On 8.11.2012 calls between accused no.2-
P.Ravi and accused No.4-Naveen Kumar were
made at 3-04am,7-20am, 7-48am, 9-08am,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
9-09am, 9-10am, 9-44am, 9-59am,10-05am,
3-19pm, 5-26pm. Calls were made between
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and Accused
No.3-Srinivasalu at 4-28pm, 4-37pm and 7-
47pm. These calls were originating from
Tumkur, Pavgada and Madhugiri.
46.8. On 9.11.2012 calls between accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi were
made at 11-31am, 1-55pm,1-55pm, , 2-
17pm, 7-09pm, 7-47pm, 8-08pm, 11-12pm.
46.9. On the same day calls were made between
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy at 1-55pm. Calls
between accused No.4-Naveen Kumar and
Accused No.3-Srinivasalu at 6-11pm, 6-
14pm, 8-01pm. These calls originated from
Pavagada.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
46.10. On 10.11.2012 calls between accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi were
made at 6-33am, 7-40am, 8-05am, 8-41am,
10-13am, 1-41pm, 4-39pm, 8-49pm. These
calls originated from Pavagada.
46.11. On 11.11.2012 calls between accused No.4-
Naveen Kumar and accused no.2-P.Ravi were
made at 9-11am, 11-59am, 3-07pm, 6-
32pm, 7-29pm.
46.12. Calls between accused No.4-Naveen Kumar
and accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy were
made at 5-26pm. These calls originated from
Pavagada.
47. ExP.13 relates to another mobile no.9885091618
of Accused No.3-Srinivasalu for a period from
November 1 to 13 of 2012. Calls between Accused
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
No.3-Srinivasalu and accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy were made on 6.11.2012 at 7-
01pm.
48. ExP.14 relates to another mobile no.9008788358
of accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy for a period
from November 1 to 13 of 2012.
48.1. On 6.11.2012 calls between accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and accused No.4-Naveen
Kumar were made at 6-25pm, 6-38, 6-41pm,
6-56, 7-12pm, 7-28pm, 7-42pm, 7-53pm, 8-
00pm, 8-17pm, 8-24pm, 8-28pm.
48.2. On the same day calls between accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy and Accused No.3-
Srinivasalu were made at 7-01pm. The calls
were originating at Ramdurg.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
48.3. On 7.11.2012 calls between accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and accused No.4-Naveen
Kumar were made at 6-51am, 7-38am, 7-
57am, 8-21am, 8-29am, 8-33am, 8-34am, 8-
55am, 4-30pm, 4-46pm, 4-56pm, 5-06pm,
5-34pm, 5-36pm, 5-42pm, 5-43pm, 6-42pm,
6-56pm,11-32pm.
48.4. On the same day calls between accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy and Accused No.3-
Srinivasaluwere made at 7-38am, 5-08pm.
These calls originated from Anjaneya nagara,
Mahanteshnagara, Gandhinagar, Khadebazar.
48.5. On 10.11.2012 calls between accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and Accused No.3-
Srinivasaluwere made at 6-01pm. This call
originated from Pavagada.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
48.6. On 11.11.2012 calls between accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy and Accused No.3-
Srinivasaluwere made at 2-45pm and calls
between accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy and
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar were made at
5-26pm. These calls originated from
Pavagada.
49. ExP.16 relates to mobile no.9449644456 of
PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa Jogi for a period from
November 1 to 13 of 2012.
49.1. On 08.11.2012 PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa Jogi
got a call from accused no.1-
Hemachandra(9494072615) at 5-50pm. The
call was received at Gaddanakeri Cross.
49.2. On 9.11.2012 PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa Jogi
got a call from accused no.1-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Hemachandra(9494072615) at 3-31pm. The
call was received at Ramatheerthanagar.
49.3. On 10.11.2012 PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa Jogi
got a call from accused no.1-
Hemachandra(9494072615) at 12-19pm. The
call was received at Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
49.4. On 11.11.2012 PW.6/CW.5-Baramappa Jogi
got a call from accused no.1-
Hemachandra(9494072615) at 4-33pm, 4-
34pm, 4-35pm. The call was received at
Raghavendranagara, Tumkur.
50. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, it is
clear that on 07.11.2012 CW.4/PW.3 had gone to
school at 8.30 a.m. in the school bus, he returned
at 4.40 p.m. and got down at the Kurlon bus stop
in Mahantesh Nagar. At that point of time, his
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
mother CW.1/PW.1-Manjula was not there to pick
him up. He got down from the bus along with his
friends CW.8/PW.5-Ramya, CW.9/PW.9-Sannidhi
and Naman. Naman's grandfather CW.7/PW.4-
Vasantha Babu and Ramya's grandmother
CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva had come to pick them up.
Hence, all of them started walking towards their
colony.
51. CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva, CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu
and CW.8/PW.5-Ramya were walking in the front,
while CW.4/PW.3, CW.9/PW.9-Sannidhi and
Naman were walking a little behind them. It is at
that point of time a white Scorpio is stated to have
come at Akkana Marga Cross, and a person
wearing a monkey cap got out of the car,
examined the identity card of CW.4/PW.3 and took
him inside the Scorpio. CW.6/PW.2-Mallavva who
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
was present at that point of time has turned hostile
and not supported the case of the prosecution.
CW.4/PW.3 the abducted boy has entirely
supported the case of the prosecution on this
point. He has himself stated that a person wearing
a monkey cap got out from the Scorpio, identified
his identity card and put him inside the Scorpio.
CW.7/PW.4-Vasantha Babu has turned hostile.
However, he has stated that the vehicle was a
white bolero. CW.8/PW.5-Ramya has stated that
she heard a scream of CW.4/PW.3 and when she
turned back, she saw a car driving away. She was
also treated as hostile and nothing much was
elicited from her. CW.9/PW.9-Sannidhi who was
walking along with CW.4/PW.3 has stated about
how they used to go to school and get back and
who would pick them up. As regards the incident
she has stated that while they were walking
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
towards Akkana Marga Cross a Scorpio car came in
front of them and some persons who had covered
their faces, abducted CW.4/PW.3 after recognizing
his identity card. Thereafter they sped away
towards P & T quarters.
52. This being the statements of the persons present
at the spot, the evidence of CW.4/PW.3 and
CW.9/PW.9-Sannidhi categorically establishes the
events which took place. Even among the
witnesses who turned hostile, CW.8/PW.5-Ramya
has stated that she heard a scream, CW.6/PW.2-
Mallavva has also stated that she heard a scream
and she turned around, but did not see anything,
she does not know what happened. CW.7/PW.4-
Vasantha Babu has stated about the bolero vehicle
coming near the cross.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
53. The above would establish that CW.4/PW.3 was
coming with others from the bus stand towards his
house, when a vehicle white scorpio/bolero
stopped near Akkana Marga Cross, CW.4/PW.3 was
identified through his identity card and was put
inside the vehicle. From the testimony of all the
witnesses the vehicle moved towards P & T
quarters which is also stated by CW.4/PW.3. The
above testimony would establish that CW.4/PW.3
was taken against his will. Admittedly, he had
screamed.
54. CW.4/PW.3 who was inside the car has identified
accused No.1-Hemachandra who was working with
his father as a supervisor. He has also seen the
faces of other accused. He has stated that at that
point of time he was administered with an
injection, upon which he went to sleep and woke
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
up when the car had nearly reached Tirupathi,
thereafter to Kallur forest. During most of this
time, CW.4/PW.3 was sedated while being in the
company of the accused. He has recognized the
persons who were there in the vehicle. CW.4/PW.3
has stated that accused No.1-Hemachandra and
accused No.2-P.Ravi stayed with him in Kallur
forest, while the others left.
55. It is during this time that CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi, the father of CW.4/PW.3 had received a call
from CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi stating that his
father-in-law CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Revadi has
found the school bag and identity card of
CW.4/PW.3. It is in pursuance thereof that
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi along with
CW.28/PW.22-PSI, Malamaruthi Police Station
went to Gaddanakeri cross, met CW.11/PW.8-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Prahlad Chachdi, who called his father-in-law
CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Revadi, who handed over
the school bag and identity card. Of course,
CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi and CW.12/PW.10-
Rudrappa Revadi have turned hostile and denied
any of the statements made by them to the police
as also the occurrence of events as aforesaid.
56. Be that as it may, the testimony of CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi supported by testimony of
CW.28/PW.22-PSI, Malamaruthi Police Station,
who had accompanied CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi to Gaddanakeri cross who have also stated
about CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi having called
CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa Revadi and the school bag
as also identity card being given to CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi, merely because CW.11/PW.8-
Prahlad Chachdi and CW.12/PW.10-Rudrappa
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Revadi have turned hostile would not mean that
the event did not occur. The testimony of
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi is supported by the
police officers CW.28/PW.22-PSI, Malamaruthi
Police Station, who had accompanied him.
Furthermore, CW.1/PW.1-Manjula, the wife of
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi and mother of
CW.4/PW.3 has also deposed about CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi receiving a call from
CW.11/PW.8-Prahlad Chachdi and asking him to
come to Gaddanakeri cross to collect the bag and
identity card. The CDR of CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi also indicates that at the relevant point of
time he was at Gaddanakeri cross.
57. It is when CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi along with
police of Malamaruthi Police Station were at
Gaddanagkeri cross that CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Jogi received a call said to be from accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy, demanding a ransom of Rs.20
crores for release of CW.4/PW.3. CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi has deposed about the receipt of
the call.
58. It is at this stage that CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi had called upon the person who had called
him to speak to his son CW.4/PW.3. There is some
inconsistency in this aspect in the evidence
inasmuch as CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi stating
that immediately thereafter the phone was handed
over to CW.4/PW.3, CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi
spoke to CW.4/PW.3, CW.4/PW.3 had requested
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi to make payment of
money and get him released, CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi agreed to do so. As per the
version of CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi this event
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
occurred on 08.11.2012. As per the version of
CW.4/PW.3 they having reached Kallur forest on
the evening of 8th on the next day evening i.e. on
09.11.2012 he was given a phone which was
already switched on, accused No.1-Hemachandra
handed over the phone to him with a direction to
tell his father to make payment of monies, which
CW.4/PW.3 did. The discrepancy in this evidence
being that firstly the date and secondly for the
reason that the alleged caller was demanding
ransom was accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy who
was not present with CW.4/PW.3 when CW.4/PW.3
spoke to his father CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi.
59. This discrepancy in our opinion is minor taking into
consideration that the deposition of CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi was recorded after 3 years of the
incident and he was being tested on memory, it is
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
probably for this reason that he had written down
the mobile numbers on his palm which was pointed
out by the counsel for the accused, further more
the questions being asked was of a situation when
he was under tremendous stress taking into
account that his son had been abducted, there was
a threat of death regarding his son and he was
moving from place to place as per the instructions
of the accused. The fact remains and the evidence
establishes the abduction of CW.4/PW.3.
60. On 10-11-2012 when two more demands for
ransom was made over phone the same were
heard by CW.14/PW.7- Vishwanath Doondappa
Kabboori Police Inspector, DCIB Belgavi,
CW.25/PW.15- Dhirajbaburao Shinde, PSI
Khanapur, CW.13/PW.17- Ravindra Shivasangappa
Shirur, PSI, Shahapur Police Station and
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
CW.26/PW-18 Chandrakanath Nandareddy, PI DSB
Belgavi. CW.13/PW.17- Ravindra Shivasangappa
Shirur, PSI, Shahapur Police Station has also
deposed that he has heard the talk between
CW.4/PW.3 and CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi.
CW.25/PW.15- Dhirajbaburao Shinde, PSI
Khanapur has also stated that CW.5/PW.6-
Bharamappa Jogi had received about 12-15 calls
when he was with him demanding ransom.
61. A perusal of the CDRs at Ex.P.7-18 which have
been analysed above would indicate and establish
the various calls made by the accused to
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi. The demand for
ransom and threat of death to CW.4/PW.3 had
been heard by the above stated witnesses.
62. There having been some more calls demanding
ransom, the police having traced out the calls to
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Chittoor on the basis of the mobile phone origin
had sent one team to Chittoor. Since some phone
calls had come from Pavagadh one more team was
sent to Pavagadh. The team which reached
Pavagadh could not find any of the accused at that
point of time, while the team which reached
Chittoor took the help and assistance of local police
and an informant on which basis they were able to
nab accused No.2-P.Ravi who in turn is stated to
have taken the team of police to the house in
Kallur forest area where CW.4/PW.3 was being
detained. The police officers who were in mufti
entered the house shown by accused No.2-P.Ravi,
found Accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu therein, arrested them and
secured the abducted child CW.4/PW.3.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
63. There is another discrepancy here inasmuch as
CW.4/PW.3 abducted child claims that accused
No.1-Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi were
in the house, whereas accused No.2-P.Ravi had
been secured by the police from Marvapalli and as
per the case of the prosecution, accused No.2-
P.Ravi is alleged to have confessed and taken the
team of police to Chittoor forest area (as deposed
by CW.16/PW.11-Police Constable, Malamaruthi
Police Station, CW.20/PW.12-Police Constable,
CW.18/PW.14-Police Constable, Kadhebazar Police
Station, CW.13/PW.17-Police Inspector, Shahpur
and CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakanth Reddy, P.I,
Malamaruthi Police Station). Thus, there is
discrepancy of the presence of accused No.2-
P.Ravi inasmuch as according to CW.4/PW.3,
accused No.2-P.Ravi was present in Kallur forest
house, whereas according to other material on
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
record, accused No.2-P.Ravi was nabbed from
Marvapalli on that day. This aspect need not detain
us much longer. We are of the considered opinion
that this discrepancy does not go to the root of the
matter to have any drastic effect on our reasoning
or conclusion.
64. Much is sought to be made out as regards to the
arrest of accused No.2-P.Ravi. It is contended that
if accused No.2-P.Ravi was arrested at Marvapalli
then he could not have been arrested at Kallur
forest. CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakanth Nandareddy,
Police Inspector in his deposition has stated that
they caught hold of accused No.2-P.Ravi in
Marvapalli. The exact word used by CW.26/PW.18-
Chandrakanth Nandareddy, Police Inspector is
' ' which has been misinterpreted to
suggest the meaning of arrest. In our considered
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
opinion, the said word does not indicate arrest but
only means 'to nab or catch'. It is only after the
accused No.2 had confessed and the CW.4/PW.3
was secured at Kallur that the accused No.1-3
were arrested. This is clear from the statement of
CW.26/PW.18-Chandrakanth Nandareddy, Police
Inspector who states '»rzÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ'
(hididukondaru) which translates to 'caught' and
not 'zÀ¸ÀÛVj' (dastagiri) which translates to 'arrest'.
65. The official witness namely CW.20/PW.12 being the
Police Constable at Malamaruti Police Station has
deposed about him going to Pavagadh and then to
Chittoor and thereafter to Marvapalli and then to
Kallur forest area, securing CW.4/PW.3 and
arresting Accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu from that place.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
66. CW.18/PW.14-Police Constable, Kadhebazar Police
Station is the Constable said to have been present
when accused No.2-P.Ravi was nabbed at
Marvapalli and when accused No.2-P.Ravi had
confessed of the offence having been committed.
67. At the time when three of the accused were
arrested in Kallur forest area, a discrepancy is
sought to be made out contending that as per
CW.4/PW.3 accused No.1-Hemachandra and
accused No.2-P.Ravi were present throughout,
whereas as per the police witnesses and the case
of the prosecution, accused No.2-P.Ravi was
captured at Marvapalli who then showed them to
the Kallur forest house. In our opinion the same
would not go to the root of the matter to affect the
case of the prosecution adversely. The fact
remains that accused No.1-Hemachandra, accused
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
No.2-P.Ravi and accused No.3-Srinivasulu were
arrested on the same date in the same area,
Marvapalli not being too far from Kallur forest
area.
68. The case of the prosecution is that three mobile
phones with two sims each and one knife each has
been recovered from accused No.1-Hemachandra,
accused No.2-P.Ravi and accused No.3-Srinivasulu.
69. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel appearing
for accused No.2-P.Ravi would submit that this
entire procedure is misconceived, improper and
cannot be countenanced in law and would vitiate
any recovery made. Apart from that, he submits
that the police would not have left three knifes to
be in the custody of accused upon their arrest.
Therefore, the knifes have been planted and
therefore the investigation is vitiated.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
70. This aspect would have to be considered with
reference to the manner in which the events took
place. As per the evidence on record, the team
from Belagavi availed the help of Chittoor police
and as per the informant of Chittoor police they
were directed to accused No.2-P.Ravi who was at
Marvapalli. When the team of police officers from
Belagavi secured accused No.2-P.Ravi there is no
one from Chittoor police at that place and the
location of securing accused No.2-P.Ravi was
outside the State of Karnataka. Thereafter the
team as per the information furnished by accused
No.2-P.Ravi went to Kallur forest house and
secured Accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu and thereafter took them to
Tumkur and to Belagavi.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
71. The prosecution only states that the mahazar was
conducted in Belagvi and the recovery made was
recorded in the said mahazar. That does not in any
manner mean or indicate that the mobile phones,
sim cards and the knifes were not recovered or
seized from accused No.1-Hemachandra, accused
No.2-P.Ravi and accused No.3-Srinivasulu. Much is
sought to be made out of the fact that recovered
knives, phones and sim cards were handed over to
the CW.28/PW.22-PSI,Malamaruthi Police Station.
C.V.Nagesh Ld Senior Counsel contends that these
mobiles, sim cards and knives were planted since it
would not be possible for an arrested person to
have continued possession of the said knives,
mobile phones and sim cards till they reached
Malamaruthi Police Station.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
72. A perusal of the deposition of CW.26/PW.18-
Chandrakanth Nandareddy, Police Inspector would
indicate that at the time of the arrest Mos2-8 were
seized from accused Nos.1-3 and upon reaching
Belagavi they were handed over to CW.28/PW.22-
PSI,Malamaruthi Police Station. Thus, the seizure
of Mos2-8 were done at Kallur and not at
Malamaruthi Police Station as sought to be
contended. Only the recordal thereof has been
made in Belagavi. This in our view would not
vitiate the recovery of the mobile phones and the
knifes. Merely because none of them have spoken
about the accused having the mobile phones and
knifes until the mahazar was drawn up would not
vitiate the recovery of the mobile phones and
knifes.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
73. The demand for ransom is stated to have been
made by accused No.5-Narasimhamurthy when he
called CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi and the said
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi has stated that he
has recorded all the calls received by him,
including the ransom calls and the conversation
with accused on the phone, in a memory card
available on his phone and that he had given both
this phone and the memory card under
acknowledgment. When the said recording was
sought to be played and the phone at MO No.1.
was brought to Court, it was seen that the phone
had been packed in a piece of paper with a string
tied around it. That is once again a failure in
following the requirements for preserving digital
evidence. Since there was no power in the said
phone it was charged, and after charging when it
was sought to be played by an expert, who had
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
been secured for that purpose, it came to light that
the memory card was not available in the phone.
There is no reason forthcoming from the
prosecution as to what happened to the memory
card. The fact remains that there is no such
recording which was available for the trial Court to
hear nor before this Court to do so.
74. Be that as it may, CW.13/PW.17-Police Inspector,
Shahpur, CW.18/PW.14-Police Constable,
Kadhebazar Police Station and CW.28/PW.22-PSI,
Malamaruthi Police Station, who had travelled with
CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa Jogi when the ransom
calls were received have categorically stated in
their evidence that they were present when the
phone calls were received and they heard the
demand for ransom made by the caller. Thus,
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
though the recording is not available the demand
for ransom made by the accused is established.
75. Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior counsel has sought
to contend that the memory card has been
removed by someone interested in the prosecution
since the said card would not be helpful for the
case of the prosecution or to adverse to the
interest. We are unable to agree with him. The
absence of the memory card only supports and
helps the accused and not the prosecution.
76. CW.4/PW.3 has categorically deposed that he had
been abducted by Accused No.1-Hemachandra,
accused No.2-P.Ravi, accused No.3-Srinivasulu,
accused No.4-Naveen Kumar, accused No.5-
Narasimhamurthy, accused No.6-Siddalinga and
absconding accused No.7-Bhasha and accused
No.8-Manoj. He has deposed about him having
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
travelled with the accused from Belagavi to Kallur
forest. He has identified accused No.1-
Hemachandra as the person who was working as a
supervisor with his father CW.5/PW.6-Bharamappa
Jogi. He has also identified the other accused in
Belagavi Police Station as also in the Court. He has
categorically stated that Accused No.1-
Hemachandra, accused No.2-P.Ravi, accused No.3-
Srinivasulu, accused No.4-Naveen Kumar, accused
No.5-Narasimhamurthy had abducted him.
77. Accused No.7-Basha and accused No.8-Manoj
having absconded, the presence of accused No.1-
Hemachandra in Belagavi on the date of the
incident is established by the records produced
through CW.10/PW.20- Manager of Pai Hotel,
Belagavi which indicates and establishes that
accused No.1-Hemachandra and some other
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
person stayed in the said hotel. Unfortunately,
even the CCTV recording which has been produced
by the said hotel on a CD was also not available,
since the CD was found to be cracked when it was
sought to be played before the Court. This is again
being so for the reason that the digital evidence
has not been properly preserved.
78. Be that as it may, the evidence of CW.10/PW.20-
Manager of Pai Hotel and perusal of Ex.P.23 being
the register maintained by the said hotel indicates
and establishes that accused No.1-Hemachandra
stayed in the said hotel on the day prior, as also on
the date of incident.
79. Much has been sought to be made out as regards
accused No.2-P.Ravi being a totally independent
person who has no connection or relation with any
of the accused. Though at first the same appears
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
to be an inviting argument and fool proof
argument, the fact remains that during the entire
trial in the lower court, the main accused namely
accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused No.2-
P.Ravi were represented by the same advocate.
The fact also remains that both accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi hail from
the same place Chittoor. Accused No.1-
Hemachandra, accused No.2-P.Ravi and accused
No.3-Srinivasulu were arrested Kallur forest area.
80. Thus, it does not lie for accused No.2-P.Ravi to
now contend that he does not know any of the
other accused and he is independent person who is
completely blemishless and who is not part of
conspiracy. Accused No.2-P.Ravi during the course
of trial as aforestated was represented by same
counsel who appeared for accused No.1-
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
Hemachandra. If indeed accused No.2-P.Ravi had
nothing to do with accused No.1-Hemachandra, he
would not have been represented by the same
counsel.
81. All the questioning of the witnesses which have
been done and all the suggestions which have
been put forth by the said counsel is on behalf of
both accused No.1-Hemachandra and accused
No.2-P.Ravi. The arguments which were advanced
before the trial Court were also common
arguments on behalf of both accused No.1-
Hemachandra and accused No.2-P.Ravi. It is only
before this Court that this new argument is now
sought to be taken up that accused No.2-P.Ravi
has no connection with the other accused.
82. Be that as it may, the CDR's at Ex P7 to P12
indicates the various calls made by Accused No.2
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
to the other accused as dealt with supra, which
also falsifies the claim that Accused no.2 does not
know any other accused.
83. The argument advanced is that they have not
committed any offence and they have been fixed in
the matter, there is no particular evidence which
has been placed on record to support this
particular argument. The evidence on record
indicates and establishes the accused knowing
each other, they having corresponded with each
other via their mobile phone, they are identified by
the abducted child. There is no enmity between the
abducted child and his family vis-à-vis the
Accused, in order to fix them in this matter.
84. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to
accept the said argument.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
85. In view of the aforesaid discussions, though there
are certain minor discrepancies and issues in the
evidence, on an over all appreciation and
examination of the evidence, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has been
able to bring home the guilt of the accused and
establish that the accused have abducted
CW.4/PW.3 for ransom, thereby having committed
the offence that they were parted with.
86. As regards the offence under Section 325 of IPC,
the allegation is that one of the teeth of
CW.4/PW.3 broke on account of assault on him by
the accused. It is contended that the broken tooth
was already loose. But, this would not have any
bearing on the matter since for the tooth to be
broken, pressure had to have been applied. Hence,
the breaking of the tooth makes out the offence
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
punishable under Section 325 of IPC as it satisfies
the 7th clause of Section 320 of IPC which has been
reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
S.320. The following kinds of hurt only are
designated as "grievous":--
First.--Emasculation.
Secondly.--Permanent privation of the sight of either
eye.
Thirdly.--Permanent privation of the hearing of either
ear.
Fourthly.--Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.--Destruction or permanent impairing of the
powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.--Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly.--Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly.--Any hurt which endangers life or which
causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
87. The accused have formed an unlawful assembly
with a view to abduct CW.4/PW.3. Thus, section
143 of IPC is made out.
88. The accused had formed this unlawful assembly
and used force and violence against CW.4/PW.3
which is punishable under section 147 of IPC.
89. After CW.4/PW.3 was abducted, he was confined
by the accused for three or more days till he was
rescued thus establishing the offence under section
343 of IPC.
90. The accused after abducting CW.4/PW.3 had
demanded a ransom of Rs.20 crores for the release
of the boy. A threat was made to the life of
CW.4/PW.3 if the said ransom was not paid thus
section 364-A and section 506 of IPC is made out.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
91. In view of the above, the trial Court has considered
the above aspects and arrived at a finding that the
accused are guilty, which finding we have also
arrived at, we find no reason to interfere with the
orders of the trial Court.
General directions:
92. During the course of discussion and consideration
of the evidence on record, it is observed that the
investigating agencies have not maintained and
preserved the digital evidence in a proper manner.
Firstly, the mobile phone was not properly sealed,
it had been tied in a piece of paper with a string,
therefore the allegation as regards the missing
memory card in the phone. Secondly, the CCTV
footage received by the Investigating Officer from
Pai Lodge, Belagavi in a compact disk was also
found cracked.
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
93. In this day and age there would be a requirement
of electronic evidence being relied upon and
produced in almost all criminal trials. It is
therefore, required that appropriate Standard
Operating Procedure is prepared and training given
to Investigating Officers as regards identification,
collection, preservation and production of
electronic evidence by the Investigating Officer.
94. The learned Additional SPP is directed to bring the
above observation to the notice of the Director
General of Police to expeditiously formulate such a
standard operating procedure and methodology of
training to all concerned. Additional Registrar
General of this Court is also directed to forward a
copy of this order to the Director General of Police.
95. Hence, we pass the following:
Crl.A.No.100190/2018
C/w. Crl.A.Nos.100351/2017,
100390/2017 AND 100397/2017
ORDER
The appeals stand dismissed.
Since accused No.1 is already in custody, the trial
Court is directed to secure the presence of accused
Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 to serve the sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sh
