Gollapudi Srinivas Reddy , Srinivas, ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2088 Tel

Telangana High Court

Gollapudi Srinivas Reddy , Srinivas, ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 7 June, 2024

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                                AND
             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

  CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 & 940 OF 2016,
  603 OF 2022; 781,786, 881, 1193 & 943 OF 2016, 601 OF 2022;
779,788, 854, 1191 & 944 of 2016, 600 OF 2022, 946, 789, 795, 859
                & 1189 OF 2016 AND 602 OF 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)

Heard Mr. Nageshwar Rao Pappu, learned Senior Counsel

representing Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the appellants in

Crl.A. Nos.774, 779, 781 and 795 of 2016, Mr. P. Prabhakar Reddy,

learned counsel representing Mr. Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned

counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.786, 787, 788 and 789 of

2016, Ms.V. Baby Rani, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A.

Nos.854, 858, 859 and 881 of 2016, Ms. Indira, learned counsel for

the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.1189, 1191, 1193 & 1195 of 2016 and

Crl.A. Nos.600, 601, 602 and 603 of 2022 and Mr. M. Jayaram

Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A. Nos.940, 943, 944

and 946 of 2016 and also Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

2. Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016

and 603 of 2022 are filed by accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7,

respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 passed by the

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar in

S.C. No.484 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.100 of 2009 of

Lalaguda Police Station), whereby and whereunder they were

convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A, 395 and 343 of IPC

and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment for the offence

under Section - 364A of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each,

and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10)

years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under

Section - 395 of IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two (02) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

each for the offence under Section - 343 of IPC.

3. Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016

and 601 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4,

10 and 7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016

passed by learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.483 of 2015 (arising out

of Crime No.224 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station), whereby and

where-under they were convicted for the offences under Sections -

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

364A and 395 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life

imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonment respectively.

4. Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016

and 600 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4,

10 and 7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in

S.C. No.481 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.69 of 2009 of

Moghalpura Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions Judge,

whereby and whereunder they were convicted for the aforesaid

offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced them to undergo

life imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments

respectively.

5. Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2016 is filed by the appellant -

accused No.10 challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in S.C.

No.296 of 2011 (arising out of Crime No.537 of 2009 of

Rajendranagar Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions

Judge, whereby and whereunder he was convicted for the aforesaid

offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments,

respectively.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

6. Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859 and 1189 of 2016 and

602 of 2022 are filed by the appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4 and

7 respectively, challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016 in S.C.

No.295 of 2011 (arising out of Crime No.537 of 2009 of

Rajendranagar Police Station) passed by the very same Sessions

Judge, whereby and whereunder they were convicted for the aforesaid

offences mentioned in paragraph No.3 and sentenced to undergo life

imprisonment and ten (10) years rigorous imprisonments,

respectively.

7. The ranks of all the appellants in all the S.C. Nos.484, 483

and 481 of 2015, 296 and 295 of 2011 are one and the same.

However, crime numbers and police stations are different as they

committed the very same offences at different places and the victims

are different viz., Crime No.100 of 2009 was registered by Lalaguda

Police Station; Crime No.224 of 2009 was registered by Jubilee Hills

Police Station; Crime No.69 of 2009 was registered by Moghalpura

Police Station and Crime No.537 of 2009 was registered by

Rajendranagar Police Station.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

8. During pendency of the proceedings before the learned

Sessions Court, accused No.1 died and, therefore the case against him

stood abated. Similarly, during pendency of the appeals in Criminal

Appeal Nos.926, 927, 942 and 945 of 2016, accused No.9 died.

Therefore, vide order dated 13.09.2023, this Court dismissed the said

appeals against accused No.9 as abated. The case against accused

No.8 was split up by learned Sessions Judge.

Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022:

9. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.100 of 2009 of

Lalaguda Police Station arising out of S.C. No.484 of 2015 is as

under:

i) PW.4 - Md. Akbar (de facto complainant) gave an oral

complaint to Lalaguda Police on 16.05.2009 at about 1.00 A.M.

stating that accused No.8 - Rahul and others abducted him along with

his owner - Bhasker Goud (PW.1) from his house, confined them

somewhere in Tarnaka and later in Jubilee Hills and robbed away their

valuables and released him to bring demanded ransom amount of

Rs.5.00 lakhs from the family of his owner and his owner is still in the

custody of kidnappers.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

ii) He further alleged that few days ago, PW.4 contacted

accused No.8, who informed him that he (accused No.8) had a rice

puller which is a very auspicious antique item and expressed his

willingness to sell. Since the owner of PW.4 was in search of antique

items, he informed him for which his owner agreed to purchase it and

accordingly both of them contacted accused No.8 who agreed to show

the item at his house situated at Railway Quarters, Lalaguda,

Secunderabad. Therefore, PW.4 informed his owner to come to the

house of Accused No.8 to see the item.

iii) When PWs.1 and 4 were waiting at the house of accused

No.8 at about 11.00 A.M., accused No.8 along with his friend Mr.

Srinivas Reddy, Venkatesh and Raju came to his house in a taxi and

then PWs.1 and 4 asked them to show the item for proceeding with

further transaction. They took them in their car to some house at

Tarnaka to show the item and after entering into the said house, they

beat them indiscriminately with sticks along with other person and

demanded ransom amount to release them. They also snatched away

gold ornaments and net cash of Rs.4.00 lakhs from PW.1 apart from

his cell phone and camera. After three days, they were shifted in mid

night to some other house at Jubilee Hills, where some more

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

kidnappers were there and all of them beat them black and blue and

demanded ransom amount.

iv) On receipt of the said complaint, the police recorded the

statement of PW.4 and registered a case in Crime No.100 of 2009

under Sections - 343, 364A and 395 of IPC and took up investigation.

v) During investigation, the police sent PW.4 to Gandhi

Hospital for treatment, where he took the treatment as outpatient vide

MLC No.15858. Thereafter, the police visited the scene of offence at

Railway quarters, North Lalaguda and conducted scene of offence

panchanama in the presence of mediators and drawn rough sketch of

scene. While so, the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station

along with task force officials arrested accused Nos.2 to 7 in Crime

No.69 of 2009 and got released the victims including PW.1 from the

clutches of offenders.

vi) During interrogation by the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura

Police Station, accused Nos.2 to 7 alleged to have confessed the

commission of offences along with their associates. The police seized

one digital camera with charger from the possession of accused No.1

belonging to PW.4 and credit cards of Axis Bank and HDFC Bank

from the possession of accused No.6 belonging to PW.1.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

vii) After completion of investigation, the police filed charge

sheet which was numbered as P.R.C. No.51 of 2011 of X Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, who later committed

the same to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for

trial and disposal. After committal, the same was made over to the VI

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. However, as per

the orders of this Court dated 26.09.2012 in Tran.Crl.P. No.54 of

2012, the said case was withdrawn from the Court of VI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge and made over to XI Additional District

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. While so, when the

accused approached the District Judge for transfer of the said case by

making certain allegations against the Presiding Officer of the said

Court, the said case was again transferred to the Court of learned

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar to

try along with other cases.

viii) During trial, PWs.1 to 10 were examined, Exs.P1 to P19

were marked and so also MOs.1 to 4 on behalf of the prosecution,

whereas, none was examined on behalf of the accused, however,

Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on their behalf.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

ix) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the

trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against

them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on

them in the manner stated above.

Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022:

10. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.224 of 2009 of

Jubilee Hills Police Station arising out of S.C. No.483 of 2015 is as

under:

i) On 16.05.2009 at about 3.00 A.M., de facto complainant -

PW.2 gave complaint with the Jubilee Hills Police alleging that he is a

resident of Station Ghanpur village of Warangal District and doing

real-estate business. About 2 years back, PW.2 came into contact with

one Mr. Shivan (PW.1), native of Tamilnadu and also Mr. Shanjuman

(LW.2), native of Kerala State during the course of real estate

business.

ii) Since then, PW.1 was introducing lady customers to the said

PW.1 - Shivan and he was getting brokerage charges. A few days

prior to lodging the report, PW.2 also came into contact with accused

No.7, a native of Eluru and Visakhapatnam and was doing real estate

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

business. In the month of April, 2009, accused No.7 called PW.2 and

informed that he had 'Rice Puller', an auspicious antique item and

informed that he intended to sell the same and requested PW.2 to

search for needy customers. Then, PW.2 informed the same to PW.1,

who informed him to come to Vizag. Accordingly, PW.2 and accused

No.7 went to Visakhapatnam and met PW.1 and offered to sell the rice

puller, on which PW.1 informed them that he would send his person to

Hyderabad.

iii) On 09.05.2009 PW.1 sent his associate Shanjuman to

Hyderabad. On 10.05.2009 at 10.00 A.M., PW.2 and Shanjuman

visited Airport and received PW.1. In the meanwhile, accused No.7

and one Venkatesh came to Airport and met him at Airport. Accused

No.7 and the said Venkatesh took them in a Scorpio Vehicle to a

house at Jubilee Hills area on the pretext of showing the rice puller

and while they were going on, PW.2 demanded to show the rice puller

on which, accused No.7 and the said Venkatesh forcibly took them to

a house at Jubilee Hills and robbed 13 tulas of gold ornaments and

cash of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1, Rs.5,000/- from Shanjuman and

Rs.10,000/- from PW.2. They further demanded ransom to release

them from their clutches. PWs.1 and 2 also noticed some more

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

persons were detained and confined in other rooms. PWs.1 and 2

were informed by other persons that they were confined by the

accused for more than a week. There were some more persons other

than the accused in the house. They beat PWs.1, 2 and another black

and blue. They came to know the names of the offenders while they

were talking together. PW.1 was made to contact his wife to arrange

money by depositing the amount into his account at his native place

and accordingly, his wife deposited the amount. The offenders

withdrew an amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs by using the ATM Card of PW.1

and started further demanding to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs so as to release

them, failing which, they were warned to kill.

iv) On 16.05.2009 at about 00.30 A.M., the accused released

him saying that he should contact the family members of PW.1 and

bring Rs.5.00 lakhs within two days and on their failure, they would

kill PW.1 and his friend.

v) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case

in Crime No.224 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up

investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the

charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC

and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

vi) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 9

were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked on behalf of the

prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the accused, however,

Exs.D1 to D8 were marked on their behalf.

vii) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides and

on consideration of entire evidence, the trial Court found the accused

guilty of the charges framed against them and accordingly convicted

and imposed life imprisonment on them in the manner stated above.

Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022:

11. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.69 of 2009 of

Moghalpura Police Station arising out of S.C. No.481 of 2015 is as

under:

i) On 15.05.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., de facto complainant -

PW.1, resident of Shalibanda, Hyderabad, lodged a report with the

police alleging that his brother (PW.2) and his brother's son (PW.3)

were sitting in their office premises at about 9.30 A.M on 14.05.2009,

an unknown person approached them and asked them to come over

with him to meet accused No.8, who allegedly came from

Visakhapatnam dealing with some rice pulling coin display at 9.30

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

A.M. Then PWs.2 and 3 followed, and the said person, who came on

two wheeler motorcycle bearing No.AP 9AJ 2481 kept the same in

their house, accompanied PWs.2 and 3 in TATA Safari bearing

No.AP 12F 5915 and from there onwards, whereabouts of PWs.2 and

3 were not known to PW.1. On the intervening night of

14/15.05.2009, the family members of PW.2 received a phone call

from PW.3 informing that PW.3 and PW.2 were kidnapped and the

kidnappers were demanding a ransom of Rs.10.00 lakhs.

ii) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a case

in Crime No.69 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up

investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the

charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC

and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.

iii) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 15

were examined and Exs.P1 to P41 were marked and so also MOs.1 to

16 on behalf of the prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the

accused, however, Exs.D1 to D14 were marked on their behalf.

iv) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the

trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on

them in the manner stated above.

Criminal Appeal No.946 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859 and 1189 of 2016 and 602 of 2022:

12. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.537 of 2009 of

Rajendranagar Police Station arising out of S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of

2011 is as under:

i) PW.1 - de facto complainant, Mr. S. Srinivas, resident of

Katedan, Rajendranagar, approached the police and gave a report on

16.05.2009 alleging that about five days prior to his statement,

accused No.8 said to be the resident of Jubilee Hills came in contact

with him and told him that he had rice puller, which is a very

auspicious antique item and offered to sell the same. PW.1 stated that

he was in search of antique item and as such, he agreed to purchase

the same.

ii) On 14.05.2009 at about 10.30 A.M., accused No.8 along

with two others, namely Sridhar and Tanuj, accused Nos.2 and 6,

came to his house where he was waiting for them along with his friend

Mohana Krishna Reddy and the said three persons took them to a

house at Jubilee Hills area in their Scorpio vehicle for showing the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

antique item. When he entered into the house along with Mohan

Krishna Reddy, they found some other persons in that house and one

Mr. Anil and his son, Sudheer of Moghalpura were also there. As

soon as they entered into the house, accused No.8 and about 10 others

started beating them with sticks and they snatched away his gold

rings, watch and cell phone. They also snatched cash from his friend,

told them that they have abducted them and demanded Rs.3.00 lakhs

to release them from their clutches. They also took the ATM Cards

forcibly. On 15.05.2009 at about 9.30 P.M., the offenders released

him saying if he does not bring Rs.3.00 lakhs by next day, they would

kill his friend Mr. Mohana Krishna Reddy. Then, he came out from

the said den and reached his house in an auto-rickshaw and, thereafter,

he approached the police and lodged the report.

iii) On receipt of the said complaint, the police registered a

case in Crime No.537 of 2009 for the aforesaid offences and took up

investigation. After completion of investigation, the police laid the

charge sheet against the accused and the same was assigned as PRC

and thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.

iv) After transferring the said case, during trial, PWs.1 to 8

were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

prosecution. None was examined on behalf of the accused, however,

Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on their behalf.

v) After completion of trial and after hearing both sides, the

trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges framed against

them and accordingly convicted and imposed life imprisonment on

them in the manner stated above.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants in all the aforesaid

appeals contended as follows:

i. None of the witnesses specifically stated about involvement of

the accused;

ii. There were no specific overt acts against the appellants;

iii. There is no evidence to prove guilt of the accused in

commission of offences;

iv. There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses;

v. The ingredients of Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC are lacking;

vi. Though some of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the

prosecution did not examine them;

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

vii. The panchanamas were prepared at the police station and

without knowing the contents, the panchas signed on them.

Therefore, no weight need be given to it;

viii. No property said to have stolen was recovered in S.C. Nos.295

and 296 of 2011 and 483 of 2015;

ix. The prosecution failed to prove the owner of the house situated

at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, where the accused alleged to have

detained the victims illegally;

x. The Investigating Officers failed to collect data from the banks

and examine them as witnesses for alleged withdrawal of

amount with the help of ATM Cards from the accounts of the

victims;

xi. The Investigating Officers also failed to collect the call data

from the Service Providers in Crime No.69 of 2009 of

Moghalpura Police Station, wherein it is the case of prosecution

that PW.3 called PW.1 stating that he and his father were

kidnapped by the accused;

xii. The evidence of victims is contradictory with each other;

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

xiii. Test identification parade was not conducted by the

Investigating Officers and, therefore identifying the accused

during trial in the Court is doubtful;

xiv. The victims were allowed to move freely and speak to their near

and dear over phone. Therefore, there is no confinement of the

victims as alleged;

xv. The appellants were falsely implicated in these cases;

xvi. The trial Court without considering all the said aspects,

recorded conviction against the appellants and imposed

sentences of imprisonment on them; and

xvii. With the aforesaid submissions, they sought to set aside the

conviction and sentences of imprisonment imposed on the

appellants.

14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as

follows:

i. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt;

ii. During trial, the victims identified the appellants as accused;

iii. The lives of the victims are at stake in the hands of the

appellants as they beat the victims indiscriminately, robbed gold

chains and rings, withdrew the cash by taking ATM Cards and

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

further demanded for ransom money by making phone calls to

their family members. If they do not bring the money, they

threatened to kill them;

iv. Though there are contradictions and omissions, the same are

minor in nature and would not tilt the case of prosecution;

v. The prosecution satisfied the ingredients of the offences under

Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC;

vi. The Investigating Officers recovered the robbed gold chains,

rings and cash etc., pursuant to the confessions made by the

accused in the presence of panch witnesses. The evidence of

panch witnesses is corroborated the same;

vii. The accused committed grave and serious offences;

viii. The prosecution has produced cogent evidence before the trial

Court, and the accused failed to produce any rebuttal evidence.

Therefore, on consideration of the same, the trial Court

convicted the accused. There is no error in the findings of the

trial Court to interfere with the impugned judgments; and

ix. With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to dismiss all the

appeals.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

15. In view above rival submissions, the common point that

falls for consideration by this Court is:

Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellants - accused for the offences under Sections - 364A, 395 and 343 of IPC and imposition of sentences of imprisonment for life and other imprisonment on them are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

16. As already stated above, the trial Court convicted the

appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 in S.C. No.484 of 2015

for the offences under Sections - 464A, 395 and 343 of IPC, while the

appellants - accused in S.C. Nos.483 & 481 of 2015 and 296 & 295 of

2011 were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395

of IPC.

i) The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195

& 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022 are not only accused in S.C. No.484

of 2015, but they are also accused in S.C. Nos.483, 481 of 2015, 296

and 295 of 2011 against which they preferred Criminal Appeal

Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 & 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022, 779, 788,

854, 1191 & 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022 respectively.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

ii) Vide the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2016, the trial

Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section - 343 of

IPC and imposed sentence of imprisonment for two (02) years each

and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in each case. The appellants are

in jail from 25.07.2016. Thus, they have already completed the said

period of two years of sentence imposed by the trial Court in S.C.

No.484 of 2015 for the offence under Section 343 of IPC.

17. The appellants - accused in all the aforesaid cases were also

convicted for the offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC. In

the light of the same, it is relevant to extract Sections - 364A and 395

of IPC and the same is as under:

"364A. Kidnapping for ranson, etc.- whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

"395. Punishment for dacoity. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

i) In view of the above, Section - 362 of IPC deals with

'abduction', and it says that whoever by force compels, or by any

deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to

abduct that person.

a) It is also relevant to note that Section - 364A of IPC was

brought into the Statute by way of an amendment i.e., Act No.42 of

1993 (w.e.f. 22.05.1993). That was a period when kidnapping and

abduction for the purpose of ransom were on the rise and, therefore,

the Law Commission of India in its 42nd Report in 1971 had

recommended insertion of Section 364A in IPC, though it was

ultimately incorporated in the year 1993.

b) In Vikram Singh @ Vicky v. Union of India 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that Section - 364A of IPC did not merely cover

acts of terrorism against the Government or Foreign State but it also

. (2015) 9 SCC 502

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

covered cases where the demand of ransom is made not as a part of a

terrorist act but for monetary gains for a private individual.

c) The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the ingredients

of Section - 364A of IPC. In Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana 2,

the Apex Court considered the essential conditions incorporated in

Section - 364A of IPC, more particularly, the second condition which

begins with conjunction and two parts of the second condition and that

third condition begins with the word 'or'. Paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15

and 16 are relevant and, therefore the same are extracted below:

"13. The first essential condition as incorporated in Section 364A is "whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction". The second condition begins with conjunction "and". The second condition has also two parts, i.e., (a) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall fulfil the second condition for offence. The third condition begins with the word "or", i.e., or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental

. (2021) 9 SCC 59

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. Third condition begins with the word "or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign state to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom". Section 364A contains a heading "kidnapping for ransom, etc." The kidnapping by a person to demand ransom is fully covered by Section 364A.

14. We have noticed that after the first condition the second condition is joined by conjunction "and", thus, whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person.

15. The use of conjunction "and" has its purpose and object. Section 364A uses the word "or" nine times and the whole section contains only one conjunction "and", which joins the first and second condition. Thus, for covering an offence under Section 364A, apart from fulfilment of first condition, the second condition, i.e., "and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person" also needs to be proved in case the case is not covered by subsequent clauses joined by "or".

16. The word "and" is used as conjunction. The use of word "or" is clearly distinctive. Both the words have been used for different purpose and object. Crawford

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

on Interpretation of Law while dealing with the subject "disjunctive" and "conjunctive" words with regard to criminal statute made following statement:-

".....The Court should be extremely reluctant in a criminal statute to substitute disjunctive words for cojunctive words, and vice versa, if such action adversely affects the accused." "

d) The Apex Court placing reliance on the judgments rendered

by it in various cases concluded the essential conditions to convict an

accused under Section - 364A of IPC in paragraph No.33 to 35 and the

same are extracted as under:

"33. After noticing the statutory provision of Section 364A and the law laid down by this Court in the above noted cases, we conclude that the essential ingredients to convict an accused under Section 364A which are required to be proved by prosecution are as follows:-

(i) Kidnapping or abduction of any person or keeping a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction; and

(ii) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or;

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

(iii) causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

34. Thus, after establishing first condition, one more condition has to be fulfilled since after first condition, word used is "and". Thus, in addition to first condition either condition (ii) or (iii) has to be proved, failing which conviction under Section 364A cannot be sustained.

35. The second condition which is "and threatens to cause a death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt" is relevant for consideration in this case since appellant has confined his submission only regarding non- fulfillment of this condition...."

e) The Apex Court reiterated the said principle, more

particularly the ingredients of Section - 364A of IPC in Ravi Dhingra

v. State of Haryana 3.

ii) Now coming to Section - 395 of IPC, it is relevant to note

that Section - 391 of IPC deals with dacoity and it says that when five

or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or

. (2023) 6 SCC 76

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or

attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such

commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so

committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".

a) Section - 390 of IPC deals with 'robbery'. It says that in all

robbery there is either theft or extortion.

b) When theft is robbery. Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the

committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away

or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the

offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any

person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of

instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

c) When extortion is robbery. Extortion is "robbery" if the

offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of

the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that

person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful

restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in

fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the

thing extorted.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

d) The explanation thereto says that the offender is said to be

present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of

instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

e) Section - 395 of IPC deals with punishment for dacoity, and

it says that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished

with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term

which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

f) Thus, to attract the offence under Section - 391 of IPC, the

following ingredients are essential:

(i) There should be five (05) persons or more;

(ii) Commit or attempt to commit the robbery; and

(iii) All such persons should act conjointly.

Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022 arising out of S.C. No.484 of 2015:

18. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the case on

hand, to prove guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 and 4 - the victims, PW.2 - doctor, who treated PW.4 and

issued Ex.P3 - wound certificate, PW.3 - panch for observation

panchanama, PW.5 - panch for confession and seizure panchanama

of accused No.10, PW.6 - panch for search proceedings confession

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

and seizure panchanama of accused No.2, PW.7 - panch for further

confession of accused No.10, PW.8 - Investigating Officer, who laid

the charge sheet, PW.9 - Investigating Officer, who recovered the

property and arrested the accused, while PW.10 - Investigating

Officer, who registered the case and issued FIR, and marked Exs.P1 to

19 and MOs.1 to 4 were exhibited. On the other hand, to disprove the

case of prosecution, Exs.D1 to D7 were marked on behalf of the

accused.

i) PW.1 is one of the victims in this case. He was also

examined as PW.7 in S.C.No.481 of 2015. In his evidence, he

deposed that he was in the field of construction of Cell Towers

business and PW.4 - Mohd. Akbar, was his employee. During

relevant point of time, PW.4 introduced accused No.8, by name Mr.

Rahul as his friend. Sometime thereafter, PW.4 and accused No.8

came to him and Accused No.8 told him that there is antique item

which pulls rice and that it is good to keep in the house. Accused

No.8 offered to show the same to him.

a) PW.1 further deposed that on 07.05.2009 at about 10.30

A.M., accused No.8 and PW.4 told him about the said item over

phone. He went to the house of PW.4, situated at Lalaguda Railway

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

Quarters. PW.8 and accused No.8 were there. Later, accused No.4

came there in a Taxi along with accused No.7. Then, all of them went

to Creativity Apartment situated at Tarnaka opposite Axis Bank. In

the said apartment, he was taken to a flat. After he entered into the

flat, 4 or 5 persons came out of the bath room and bed room including

accused No.9 and beat him with sticks and robbed his gold chain, two

gold rings and ATM cards of ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank. The said

persons also beat PW.4. Camera and phone of PW.4 were taken away

by them. Further, the appellants - accused detained him and PW.4 in

the said flat for three (03) days.

b) PW.1 further deposed that after they were taken to that flat,

the culprits brought two (02) or more persons and abducted them in

the same flat. Later, he, PW.4 and other victims were blindfolded and

took them in a vehicle to the house situated near Road No.12, Jubilee

Hills, Hyderabad, and kept them in a room. There were some more

persons who were acting with accused No.7 and others. When he was

at Tarnaka by pouncing him and beating him, they obtained PIN

numbers of ATM Cards. After he came out, he verified by taking

bank statements and noticed that Rs.4.00 lakhs was withdrawn from

his accounts. Even after they were taken to the house at Jubilee Hills,

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

the accused and others beat him, PW.4 and other victims, who were

abducted. He was beaten every day demanding more money, but he

could not arrange more money. He and PW.4 were detained in the

house at Jubilee Hills for three (03) days.

c) PW.1 further deposed that on 15.05.2009, the accused let

off PW.4 demanding him to go and get Rs.5.00 lakhs from his house,

otherwise, they threatened to kill him. On 16.05.2009 at about 3.00 or

4.00 P.M., the police force came to the house in which they were

detained. There was clash between the police and the accused and

their companions. The police rescued him and others, in all 15

persons and arrested 10 culprits. Some of the culprits escaped from

the scene. They were taken to South Zone Police Office and

examined them. On the same day evening, PW.4 also came there. He

sustained number of injuries and he was taken to Osmania General

Hospital, where he was treated by the doctor. PW.4 told him that he

gave report to Lalaguda Police Station, who examined him.

d) PW.1 further deposed that among the persons, who beat him,

accused No.4 alone was present before the Court and others were not

before the Court. He identified MO.1, gold chain, MOs.2 and 3, two

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

(02) gold rings robbed from him, MO.4 is Camera robbed from PW.4.

Ex.P1 is the ATM card of ICICI Bank robbed from him, while Ex.P2

is ATM Card of Axis Bank. By mistake, he mentioned that the Card

is that of HDFC Bank. He has identified accused No.6. He can

identify some of the victims abducted in the house. Among them, Mr.

Shivam said to be resident of Bangaluru, Mr.Jyothi Kumar of Jangaon

(PWs.1 and 2 in S.C. No.483 of 2015) and two (02) Marwadies i.e.,

father and son. He again deposed that there was only one Marwadi.

e) During cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that he got

acquaintance with accused No.8 for the first time fifteen (15) days

prior to the subject incident. After fifteen (15) days, he verified his

accounts and found about withdrawal of cash. He and others in all

about ten (10) persons were taken to Hospital at about 4.00 or 4.30

P.M. However, he admitted that he did not know whether the doctor

examined all of them or not. The Police, Moghalpura recorded his

statement between 3.00 and 4.00 P.M. The Police, Lalaguda also

examined him on the same day at 6.00 P.M. after he came out of the

Hospital. The place where they were kept at Tarnaka is a flat in

Creativity Apartment. He did not state before the police about the

name of the apartment, but subsequently he verified and noted the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

name. Similarly, he did not state before the police that the house in

which they were abducted at Jubilee Hills near Road No.12 and he

came to know about it later on verification. He did not know that the

house in which they were detained subsequently is situated in Jubilee

Hills till they were rescued from there. He did not state before the

police that he, PW.4 and others were taken from Tarnaka after they

were blindfolded. He did not remember the names of other persons

who were kept in the flat at Tarnaka along with them. The other

victims were also rescued by the police from the house at Jubilee

Hills.

f) PW.1 further admitted that his wife and other family

members did not give any report to the police till they were rescued.

Whenever phone call is received by him from his wife, he was made

to talk to her normally without disclosing about the kidnap, that he

was threatened with dire consequences if his position is disclosed and

that similarly the other victims were allowed to answer to the calls.

He did not state before the police that his ATM cards were also

robbed. Even after they were taken to the house at Jubilee Hills, some

persons were kidnapped regularly. He saw Jyothi at Jubilee Hills'

house on 10th or 11th May, 2009. He saw Marwadi people on

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

16.05.2009. PW.4 did not go to his house as he does not know the

address of his house. Among the persons arrested by the police,

accused Nos.7 and 9 were there and accused No.4 escaped. He did

not know the names of culprits arrested by the police except accused

No.4 - Srinivas Reddy and accused No.7 - Pothu Raju. He did not

state before police that he can identify the culprits if shown to him.

ii) PW.4 - Mohd. Akber is another victim. He was also

examined as PW.8 in S.C. No.481 of 2015. In his evidence, he

deposed that he was employee of PW.1 at the relevant point of time

i.e., Supervisor in the erection of telecom towers. He worked under

PW.1 for about 1½ years till 2009. He got acquaintance with accused

No.8 through his friend, Mr. Ilyas. Subsequently, in connection with

data base entry regarding telecom tower work, he went to Vizag in

2008, where he saw accused No.8. Since then, accused No.8 used to

call him once in fifteen (15) days or one (01) month. Subsequently,

there was a gap of three (03) months and thereafter in the first week of

May, 2009, accused No.8 called him and told that he had an antique

item called 'Rice Puller'. As his employer, PW.1, was interested in

antique items, he told PW.1 about rice puller, on which PW.1

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

expressed his interest to see it and accordingly he informed the same

to accused No.8.

a) PW.4 further deposed that accused No.8 told him that he

would come to his house by 11.00 A.M. on 07.05.2009. PW.1 came

to his house by that time. Accused No.8 came to his house along with

2 others whose names were informed to him as Mr. Dinesh Reddy and

Mr. Venkateshwarlu in a Taxi. Accused No.8 and others asked PW.1

about the mode of payment to be made on which PW.1 asked them to

show the item. Then, accused No.8 and others asked him and PW.1 to

accompany them and hurriedly brought them in the same Taxi to an

Apartment situated near Railway Degree College, Tarnaka. They

were taken to a flat situated in the fourth floor. After they entered into

that house, some persons came out of the rooms and among them

accused Nos.1 to 6 were there along with one Mr. Dinesh Reddy.

They attacked him and PW.1 by gauging with towels. They beat them

with sticks and demanded money. They robbed his cell phone and

Handycam and his ATM card and they verified with the help of PIN

number and as no balance was there, they returned his ATM Card.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

b) PW.4 further deposed that they robbed gold chain of PW.1,

gold rings and bracelet, watch and his ATM Card. With the help of

ATM Card of PW.1, they withdrew about Rs.3.00 lakhs on different

dates. He and PW.1 were made necked and beat them. PW.1 was

demanded to give more money. They made PW.1 to talk to his wife

and by selling gold ornaments she deposited Rs.1.00 lakh in the

account of PW.1. That amount was also withdrawn by the aforesaid

accused. They were confined in the flat at Tarnaka for 3 or 4 days.

Subsequently, on one midnight, he and PW.1 were blindfolded, hands

were tied and kept in a vehicle and at the point of knives they were

made to sit in the vehicle and were taken to some place at Jubilee

Hills. That car was driving by Mr. Dinesh Reddy and accused Nos.4

and 5 escorted the said car. At Jubilee Hills, they were kept in a room.

After they were taken, there were about six (06) persons abducted by

the accused, like them. At Jubilee Hills, he saw accused Nos.7, 9 and

10 along with other accused. He can identify some of the persons

abducted by the accused i.e., Mr.Shivam, Mr. Shajumon, Mr. Anil,

Mr. Srivastaav and his son, Mr. Jyothi Kumar, Mr. Mohan Krishna.

They were confined in the house at Jubilee Hills for about three (03)

days. After they were taken there, the aforesaid victims were brought

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

in batches and beat them in the same fashion demanding money from

them. The accused threatened to kill PW.1 and demanded him to get

more money.

c) PW.4 further deposed that on the night of 14/15.05.2009, he

escaped and by taking in an Auto, he went near his house. There were

number of injuries on his body. Instead of going into his house from

there, he went to Lalaguda Police Station on walk and met Sub-

Inspector of Police, who recorded his statement. It was at about 1.00

A.M. on 15.05.2009. After recording Ex.P6 - statement, he was sent

to Gandhi Hospital by the police. The doctor examined him. Later,

he again went to the police station by about 12.00 noon. Since then

till evening, he roamed in the surroundings without going to house as

there were injuries on his body. At about 12.00 A.M. i.e., in the

intervening night of 15/16.05.2009, he was called by constable

through phone and informed him that PW.1 and other were rescued

from Jubilee Hills and that they were at South Zone Office and asked

him to come over there. Then, he went to South Zone Police Office,

who recorded his statement. Lalaguda Police also recorded his

statement.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

d) During cross-examination, PW.4 has admitted that before

signing on Ex.P6, he has gone through it. He and PW.1 talked to

accused No.8, who agreed to come to his house to show the Rice

Puller item. He did not state before the police that the flat at Tarnaka

was in the 4th floor and about the quantum of ransom demanded by the

accused. He did not state before the police about accused taking his

ATM and returning it as no money was there; about making PW.1 to

talk to his wife and about her selling gold ornaments and depositing

Rs.1.00 lakh in the account of PW.1; about blindfolding them and

tying their hands while shifting them from Tarnaka to Jubilee Hills.

As accused Nos.4 and 5, who tied their hands and blindfolded them

sat by their side to prevent them from escaping. He knew that it was

accused Nos.4 and 5 that escorted them and before blindfolding them

he saw Mr. Dinesh Reddy in the driving seat. He did not know

whether there was any watchman at the apartment at Tarnaka where

they were confined for some time. One day after they were taken to

Jubilee Hills, Mr. Shivam and his friend were brought to that house. 4

or 5 hours thereafter Mr. Anil and his son Mr. Sudheer were also

brought there. He did not call to the wife of PW.1. He was in

confused state by the time and, therefore, he approached the police.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

He did not know what to do to rescue PW.1. He did not perceive any

threat to the life of PW.1 by giving statement before Lalaguda police.

e) PW.4 further deposed that Moghalpura police recorded his

statement five (05) days after the incident. He had no prior

acquaintance with any accused standing before the Court. He gave

phone number of accused No.8 to the police. He never saw rice

pulling item and he did not know its worth.

iii) PW.5, panch witness, deposed that on 18.06.2009 at about

11.00 A.M., the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura Police Station called

him and accordingly he went there. The Inspector also called LW.12.

At that time, accused No.10 was there. The police showed him a

rental agreement and a panchanama was prepared there. The police

obtained his signatures and LW.12 on the Photostat copy of Ex.P7 -

rental agreement, which was seized from accused No.10.

a) During cross-examination, PW.5 has admitted that he knew

PWs.1 and 2 since long time as they are residents of same locality in

which he resides. Panchanama was prepared at the police station and

the police informed him that Ex.P7 was recovered from accused

No.10. Panchanama was prepared when he was sitting in the police

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

station. He cannot read and write English. Contents of panchanama

were read over to him before he signed on it. Accused No.10 alone

was present in the police station on that day. None of the other

accused present before the Court were there along with accused

No.10.

iv) PW.6 - Mr. Dinesh Kumar, (Also examined as PW.4 in S.C.

No.483 of 2015, PW.12 in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and PW.5 in S.C.

Nos.295 and 296 of 2011), deposed that he is the resident of

Shalibanda and doing business in cloth. On 16.5.2009 at about 6.00

P.M., Police, Moghalpura called him to the police station and

accordingly he went there. By the time he went, LW.17 was there. The

police took both of them to a house situated in Navanirman Nagar,

which is part of Jubilee Hills, where they noticed a vehicle bearing

No.AP with some English letters '5915', which is a Safari Vehicle

Blue in colour was found parked in front of that house. About eight

(08) police personnel headed by the Inspector of Police came there

along with them. The police found 6 or 7 persons who were

kidnappers and 12 or 13 persons who were victims of abduction in

that house. The police came there with expectation that only 1 or 2

persons might be there, but on seeing number of persons, the police

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

got confused. The police caught all the persons and tied them and

then ascertained the victims and separated them from the culprits. The

house in which they were found is Duplex house.

a) PW.6 further deposed that they also found some sticks,

thermocol box, in which some newspapers were there. They also

found some number plates used for vehicles. The police prepared

Ex.P8 - panchanama and obtained their signatures on them. The

police seized the sticks and box with newspapers and vehicle found in

front of the house, vide Ex.P9 - seizure panchanama. Accused Nos.2

to A7 were the kidnappers found in that house. In Ex.P8, the names

of the offenders and victims were mentioned. Later, they returned to

Moghalpura Police Station by about 8.30 P.M. The police brought

accused Nos.2 to 7 and all the rescued victims to police station.

b) PW.6 further deposed that at the police station, the police

had interrogated the above accused. During interrogation, accused

No.2 confessed and accordingly cash of Rs.3,000/- and 3 Cell phones

and Voter identity card of accused No.2 were seized from his

possession and in pursuance of his confession, accused No.2 took

them to another house situated near the house from where accused

No.2 was arrested and a Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP with some

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

English letters and No.8338 was shown and the same was seized by

the police along with the aforesaid articles. The police prepared

confession-cum-seizure report and obtained their signatures. Ex.P10

is the admissible portion of the said report containing seizure of

articles.

c) PW.6 further deposed that later Accused No.3 was

interrogated and based on his confession, the police recovered cash of

Rs.2,000/- and odd, two debit/credit cards, which were seized from

him and panchanama was prepared and their signatures were obtained

on it. Ex.P11 is the relevant portion of panchanama about seizure of

cash and debit and credit cards. Later, accused No.4 was interrogated

and based on his confession, the police seized cash of Rs.2,400/- or

2,600/- from him and prepared another panchanama and obtained

their signatures on it. Ex.P12 is the relevant portion of panchanama

about seizure of cash from accused No.4, and so also an amount of

Rs.2,000/- from accused No.5 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- from

accused No.6 and two debit/credit cards vide Ex.P13. Further an

amount of Rs.2,000/- and three Cell Phones and Wallet were seized

from accused No.7 vide Ex.P14.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

d) During cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that he gave

evidence about this incident in IX ACMM, Nampally, Hyderabad. He

did not remember if he deposed in that case i.e., C.C.No.569 of 2009

that "on 14.4.2009 one Sameer Kumar Srivastav, who is the second

son of Anil Kumar Srivastav received phone call from Anil Kumar

Srivastav stating that he is in trouble and he was kidnapped and asked

for an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs, he was present by the side of Mr.

Sameer Kumar Srivastav. Anil Kumar Srivastav is his neighbour and

his friend the said Anil Kumar Srivastav was waiting outside the court

hall today" as in Ex.D4. He did not remember if he deposed in the

said case that accused were present in the task force office at the time

of confession as in Ex.D5. He also did not remember if he deposed in

that C.C. that in the morning hours of 16.05.2009 he was called by

C.I. of Task Force to his office and he went there and saw all the

accused in that case in that office as in Ex.D6. The police obtained

signatures of accused on their respective confessions. He signed 7 or

8 times on the confessions. He did not remember how many sets

(number of copies) of confessions were prepared. The police

interrogated the accused showed the articles recovered and prepared

panchanamas and obtained their signatures. It took more than two

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

hours for interrogation, recovery and preparation of panchanamas. In

all, he put about 20 signatures on all the panchanamas and other

documents. Most of the cash seized from the accused is in the

denomination of five hundred rupee. He did not observe whether the

notes were old or new. Ex.P8 was prepared at the Jubilee Hills House.

It took more than one hour at that house.

v) PW.7 - Mr. Vishal Srivastav (also examined as PW.5 in S.C.

No.483 of 2015 and PW.13 in S.C. No.481 of 2015), deposed that on

29.06.2009 at about 2.00 P.M. the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura

called him to the police station. By the time he went there, one Mr.

Raju was present. In the police Station, accused No.10 was found in

the custody of police. On interrogation in his presence, accused No.10

confessed about the commission of offence and offered to show the

house of his friend viz., Mr. Paul in which accused No.10 kept cash

and jewellery got by him in the commission of present offence. The

police prepared panchanama and obtained his signatures and the

signatures of Mr. Raju. Ex.P15 is the admission portion of confession

of accused No.10. Later, accused No.10 took them to Flat No.104,

situated in Srinagar Colony, near Ameerpet, wherein, Mr. Paul was

there. On questioning, Mr. Paul brought out a plastic carry bag.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

There is a cash of Rs.50,000/-, three (03) gold chains and a gold kada

in the said bag. The police seized them vide Exs.P16 to P18. During

cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from this

witness.

vi) PW.8 - P. Shiva Bhaskar, the then Inspector of Police,

Lalaguda Police Station, deposed about conducting of investigation

with regard to tracing the offenders, surrendering of accused No.10

before him, his arrest and release on bail and collection of copies of

confessions of accused, remand report, seizure reports and laying

charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 7, 9 and 10, while accused

Nos.9 and 11 were found absconding etc. In the cross-examination,

nothing incriminating was elicited by the accused.

vii) PW.9 - D. Raj Kumar (Also examined as PW.8 in S.C.

No.483 of 2015, PW.14 in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and PW.8 in S.C.

Nos.295 and 296 of 2011), the then Inspector of Police, Moghalpura

Police Station, deposed about arrest of accused No.1 on 24.06.2009

and recovery of MOs.2 and 3 in pursuance of confession made by

accused No.1. He further deposed that he arrested accused No.9 on

01.07.2009, however, he did not recover anything in connection to the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

present case. He also arrested accused No.10 on 18.06.2009, and in

pursuance of his confession, he recovered MO.1 - gold chain. In the

cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited by the accused.

viii) PW.10 - S.R. Venkateswar Naik, the then Inspector of

Police, Lalaguda Police Station, deposed that on the intervening night

of 15/16.05.2009 at 1.00 A.M., when PW.4 came to his police station,

he recorded his statement vide Ex.P6. Based on the same, he

registered Ex.P9 FIR vide crime No.100 of 2009. As PW.4 was

having injuries on his body, he sent him to Gandhi Hospital for

treatment. Then, he went to the house of PW.4 at Railway Quarters,

North Lalaguda, inspected the scene in the presence of PW.3 and one

Mr. M. Veeranna. He did not find any incriminating material there.

During the course of investigation, he came to know that Moghalpura

Police arrested some of the accused in this case and he went there. He

collected copies of FIR, confession statements of arrested accused and

MOs.1 to 3. In the cross-examination, nothing incriminating was

elicited by the accused.

19. The aforesaid facts would reveal that both PWs.1 and 4,

victims, specifically deposed about their abduction and abduction of

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

other persons/victims by the appellants - accused. Both of them

specifically stated that the appellants herein detained them, robbed

gold chain, gold rings and ATM Card from PW.1 and Cell Phone and

Handycam from PW.4. They have also beat PWs.1 and 4 and other

victims with sticks. Thereafter, they were shifted from the flat situated

at Tarnaka to a house at Jubilee Hills and detained there for about 3 to

4 days. The accused withdrew an amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs from the

account of PW.1 and they have demanded further amount of Rs.5.00

lakhs from PW.1 and accordingly they released PW.4 with

instructions to go to the house of PW.1 and get the said amount,

failing which, they would kill PW.1. Thus, PWs.1 and 4 specifically

deposed about the abduction, detention and threat to cause death or

hurt and thereby their conduct give rise a reasonable apprehension that

both PWs.1 and 4 may be put to death or hurt. The accused have also

robbed the aforesaid items i.e., gold chain, rings and ATM Card and

withdrawal of Rs.4.00 lakhs etc., from the account of PW.1 with the

help of ATM Card and Cell Phone and Handycam from PW.4. The

appellants herein also beat them with sticks. They were shifted from

Tarnaka to Jubilee Hills by blindfolding them. During cross-

examination nothing was elicited from them.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

20. PW.2, the doctor, who treated PW.4 and issued Ex.P3 -

wound certificate. According to him, the following injuries were

found on the body of PW.4.

i. Bruises on the back indicating assault with rod/stick;

ii. Bruises on the high and ankle Ventrally present (front portion);

iii. Complaint of blunt injury on the chest;

iv. Pain and swelling on the left elbow on the right forearm.

a) PW.4 was advised X-ray of Chest, left elbow and right wrist

with forearm. X-ray showed no bone injury. Based on his

examination, he opined that the injuries sustained by PW.4 are simple

in nature and they might have been caused by any blunt weapon.

However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not

noted the detailed address of injured, but noted that he is the resident

of Lalaguda. He has not noted any identification marks of injured.

He has not obtained signature or thumb impression of injured at the

column meant for it. It is not mentioned in Ex.P3 about nature of

weapons with which the injuries found on the injured might have been

caused. He cannot say the date on which Ex.P3 was given to the

police.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

b) PW.3 is the panch witness and according to him, the police

questioned some of them and prepared observation report and rough

sketch of the said place vide Exs.P4 and P5 which contains his

signatures. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not

know PW.4. He signed on Exs.P4 and P5 at the police station and

police showed him the place at which kidnap was done.

21. Thus, the prosecution has proved abduction of PWs.1 and

4, their illegal detention by the appellants and that the appellants have

threatened both PWs.1 and 4 to cause death or hurt. This conduct of

the appellants give rise the apprehension of PWs.1 and 4 that they

may be put to death or cause hurt. Prosecution also proved the

ingredients of Section - 395 of IPC by examining the aforesaid

witnesses. PWs.1 and 4 were confined in a flat situated at Tarnaka

and thereafter shifted them to a house situated at Jubilee Hills. As

stated above, during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses,

nothing incriminating was elicited from them. Ex.P3 - wound

certificate discloses the injuries on the body of PW.4 caused by the

appellants.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

22. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that in

161 Cr.P.C. statement, PW.4 categorically stated on 07.05.2009 in the

morning hours, he along with PW.1 were waiting at his house, at

about 1100 hours, accused No.8 along with his friends, Mr. Srinivas

Reddy, Venkatesh and Raju came to his house in a Taxi, whereas in

the evidence before the trial Court, PW.4 has deposed that accused

No.8 along with Mr. Dinesh Reddy and one Mr. Venkateshwarlu

came to his house in a Taxi. Thus, there are contradictions. Further,

the said Mr. Dinesh Reddy and the said Venkateshwarlu were not

examined by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the evidence of

PW.4 has to be sidelined. But, in the light of the aforesaid discussion,

non-examination of the aforesaid two persons is not at all fatal to the

case of prosecution, more particularly, considering the deposition of

PWs.1, 2, 4 and panch witnesses.

23. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the

victims were allowed to move freely and they were allowed to speak

with their family members and, therefore, there is no kidnapping and

that the victims went to the flat voluntarily and, therefore, the question

of abduction does not arise.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

i) PWs.1 and 4 specifically deposed that the accused instructed

them to speak to their family members over phone and demanded

ransom; while speaking to their family members, the accused stood

beside them, threatened them not to disclose about their abduction

etc., failing which they will have to face dire consequences. The

accused also threatened them to kill if they disclose their location,

kidnap etc. Thus, the accused did not allow the victims (PWs.1 and 4)

to speak to their family members freely.

ii) In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 that they were

abducted by the appellants and threatened them that they would kill

them if PW.1 does not pay the demanded amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs, the

said contention is unsustainable. The appellants made PW.1 to speak

to his wife only for depositing an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh into his

account and withdrawal of the same by the appellants apart from the

amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs, would show the commission of offences by

the appellants.

24. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the

Investigating Officers did not conduct test identification parade to

identify the accused and also to identify the robbed gold chains and

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

rings etc., and, therefore, non-conducting test identification of parade

is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is trite to note that test

identification parade is not a substantive piece of evidence and its

primary purpose is for making sure that the investigation is going on

in the right direction, particularly as far as the identity of the accused

is concerned. It is also settled law that when other cogent evidence is

available, non-conducting of identification parade is not so material

and hence not fatal to the prosecution case. But, in the case on hand,

prosecution heavily relies on the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 being the

victims to prove the identity of the appellants herein as the assailants,

were beaten by the accused and they were received injuries. In view

of the same, identification of the accused by the victims during trial

before the Court and so also the stolen property cannot be doubted.

Thus, the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants is

unsustainable.

25. In the administration of criminal justice, an accused is

presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the

prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the

offence with which he is charged. Further, if two views are possible

on the consideration of evidence produced in the case, one indicating

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view

favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the Court

entertains a reasonable doubt regarding guilt of the accused, the

benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same

time, the Court must not reject the evidence of prosecution taking it as

false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis

of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be

judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In

appreciating the evidence, the approach of the Court must be

integrated, not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of

evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of accused

has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or

otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of

the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the

evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic

value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately

and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each

case.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

26. In view of the above basic principles of criminal

jurisprudence, coming to the present cases, the offences alleged

against the appellants are under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC.

i) As already discussed above, the necessary ingredients for the

offence under Section - 364A of IPC which the prosecution must

prove, beyond reasonable doubt, before the Court are not only an act

of kidnapping or abduction but thereafter the demand of ransom,

coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or

abducted, must be there. The prosecution proved the same by

examining PWs.1 and 4, the victims, who specifically deposed that the

appellants took them to the aforesaid house, detained there and beat

them indiscriminately. Further, the appellants robbed the gold chain,

gold rings, ATM Cards, withdrew the cash and further demanded

ransom for their release by making phone calls to the wife of PW.1. If

the amount is not arranged, threatened them to kill. Thus, the

prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing

cogent and legally acceptable evidence, both oral and documentary.

ii) With regard to the offence under Section - 395 of IPC, as

discussed above, the essential ingredients are; i) the accused had

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

committed or attempted to commit robbery; ii) persons committing or

attempting to commit robbery must be five or more. This includes the

person present and aiding; and iii) all such persons should act

conjointly.

a) In Lachhman Ram v. State of Orissa 4, on examination of

the facts therein, the Apex Court held all the accused persons

committed dacoity in the houses of the complainant one after the other

and looted and took away various kinds of property in the nature of

watches, ornaments, etc. All the accused were held guilty under

Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code.

b) In Ganesan v. State, rep.by Station House Officer5, while

discussing the essential element of Section - 391 of IPC, the Apex

Court observed that the offence under Section 391 of IPC punishable

under Section 395 IPC cannot be declared to not have been made out

just because some of the accused fled and less than five individuals

turned up to be punished in the trial. It is necessary to take into

account that five or more people participated in and committed the

robbery, not whether those people were put on trial. When five or

more people jointly commit the robbery offence or attempt to commit

. (1985) 2 SCC 533

. LiveLaw 2021 SC 614

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

the robbery, the case is brought under Section 391 of IPC and is

considered to be a "dacoity," depending on the evidence.

c) As discussed above, in these cases, the appellants are more

than five in number and all of them jointly committed the aforesaid

offence. Thus, the prosecution also proved the said offence by

producing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary.

27. As discussed above, the trial Court considered the nature of

offences committed by the appellants and that they are habituated in

committing the offences. The trial Court also considered the modus

operandi in securing the presence of persons including the victims in

the present cases on the pretext of production of Rice Puller, kept

them in wrongful confinement and thereby robbing their valuable

movables and demanding ransom amount from them, their friends and

relatives. The trial Court also considered the fact that several persons

were confined by the accused. The offences committed by the

appellants are serious and grave in nature. On consideration of the

aforesaid evidence, both oral and documentary and gravity of the

offence in paragraph Nos.4 to 17 of the impugned judgment, the trial

Court gave a specific finding that the appellants committed the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted them by imposing the

sentences of life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous

imprisonment, respectively. It is a reasoned order and well-founded.

The appellants failed to make out any case to interfere with the

impugned judgment. Thus, all the present appeals fail and the same

are liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193 and 943 of 2016 and 601 of 2022 (arising out of S.C. No.483 of 2015):

28. Coming to these appeals, the appellants herein - accused

Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7, were convicted for the offences under

Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC and they were imposed imprisonment

of life and ten years rigorous imprisonment respectively. To prove

their guilt, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 - the victims,

PWs.3 and 5 - panchs for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of

accused No.10, PW.4 - panch for confession and seizure panchanama

of accused Nos.2 to 7, PW.9 - the doctor, who treated PW.1 for the

injuries he sustained, PW.7, the Inspector of Police, who registered the

FIR, PW.8, the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and

recovered stolen property from the accused and PW.6, the Inspector of

police, who laid charge sheet against the accused, and marked Exs.P1

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

to 16. On the other hand, to disprove the case of prosecution, Exs.D1

to D8 were marked on behalf of the accused.

i) As stated above, the appellants herein were convicted for the

offences under Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC and accordingly

imposed sentence of imprisonment for life and ten (10) years rigorous

imprisonment respectively.

ii) PW.1, the victim deposed that he is the native of

Coimbatore. He knows PW.2 - complainant in real estate business at

Vizag. He also knows LW.2 - eye witness. On 16.05.2009, PW.2

called him and told him that there is a house for sale at Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad worth of Rs.10.00 Crores for Rs.5.00 Crores and asked

him to come to Hyderabad. He came to Hyderabad by flight by 10.00

A.M. By the time, he got down at Airport, he found accused Nos.7

and 10 there along with PW.2. They brought a car for him and took

him to the said house.

a) PW.1 further deposed that after they got down from the car,

they sent away the car. Soon after he entered into the house main gate

and door of the house were closed and his mouth was gauged with a

towel. Along with accused Nos.7 and 10, other accused, who were

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

present in the Court Hall, were there. All of them beat him with sticks

of which one stick was damaged. He sustained injuries on mouth,

back side and other parts of the body.

b) PW.1 further deposed that the accused demanded him to pay

Rs.1.00 Crore as ransom for releasing him. They robbed four (04)

gold rings, one (01) gold chain and one (01) Bracelet. PWs.2 and 3 in

S.C. Nos.295 and 296 of 2011 and other victims were also in the said

house on that day. The accused also robbed ATM Card of ICIC Bank

(Ex.P1) in the name of his wife and withdrew an amount of Rs.1.00

lakh and cash of Rs.4.00 lakhs which were with him. On the same

day, at about 4.30 or 5.00 P.M., about 20 to 30 police came to the

house and rescued him and other victims in all about 12 persons. The

accused also took his cell phone and did not allow him to talk to

anyone. Before coming to the police, the accused informed him that

he should talk to his family members to bring money, then only they

would release him. After he was taken to the house at Jubilee Hills,

PW.2 informed him that there was a Rice Pulling Bowl with accused

and if it is sold to anyone, he would get more money.

c) During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that he told the

police what all deposed in his chief-examination. He did not mention

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

the name of Airlines in which he came to Hyderabad. He did not give

flight ticket to the police. After he was rescued, he called to the Call

Centre and got operation of Ex.P1 blocked. He did not meet PWs.2

and 3 before he identified them in the Court Hall. Prior to 16.05.2009,

he had no prior acquaintance with accused No.7 and except his name,

he did not know the names of other accused.

iii) PW.2 - complainant deposed that he is doing real estate

business since 1996. He knows PW.1 since 2002, as part of his

business. He used to do real estate business at Vizag. As a part of

real estate business, he got acquaintance with accused No.7 also. In

the month of April, 2009 on one day, accused No.7 came to his house

and told him that there is a rice pulling item and it is good to keep it in

the house and enquired him whether there are any buyers for it. Then,

he informed the same to PW.1 and accordingly, in the first week of

May, 2009, he and accused No.7 went to Vizag and met PW.1 in a

lodge and discussed with him. On 09.05.2009, PW.1 sent LW.2 to

Hyderabad, to verify the said item, on which LW.2 met accused No.7

on 09.05.2009. On 10.05.2009, PW.1 came to Hyderabad, and LW.2

and accused Nos.7 and 10 were at the Airport. They received PW.1.

Accused Nos.7 and 10 brought a private taxi, then he, PW.1 and LW.2

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

were taken to Hotel Sitara at Ameerpet, where LW.2 was lodged on

the previous day.

a) PW.2 further deposed that from the said hotel, he, PW.1 and

LW.2 were taken by accused No.7 and 10 in that private tax to Jubilee

Hills stating that the owner of the article will go away. They were

taken to a house in Jubilee Hills. By the time they reached, the

remaining accused were there. Then, he and accused No.7 were sent

out asking them to get milk packets. Later, PW.1 was taken to

upstairs of that house to show him the article and he was brought to

the down stairs after half-an-hour. He noticed some changes in the

face of PW.1.

b) PW.2 further deposed that the accused beat him and PW.1

with stout sticks indiscriminately demanding money. PW.1 sustained

head injury. PW.1 was forced to call his wife and asked her to deposit

money into his account. Accordingly, she deposited more than

Rs.5.00 lakhs in the account of PW.1. The accused robbed ATM

Cards, gold chain and number of gold rings from PW.1. The accused

also robbed cash of Rs.10,000/-, cell phone, purse and pan card from

him. Rs.5,000/- was robbed from LW.2. There were some persons

kept in that house who brought in two batches including two

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

marwadies and name of one of the marwadies is Mr. Anil Kumar.

They were confined in that house till evening of 15.05.2009, when

police came and rescued them. After rescue, they were brought to

Moghalpura Police Station. The police examined him and let him off

in the mid night and asked him to come in the next morning so asto

take him to the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police as

in Ex.P2. He was taken treatment in Gandhi Hospital at

Secunderabad.

c) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that after Ex.P2

and after returning from the hospital, the police recorded his statement

on 16.05.2009 at about 9.00 A.M. He volunteered that he was

released by the accused between 7.00 and 8.00 P.M. on 15.05.2009

with instructions to contact family members of PW.1 and get money

iv) PW.3, panch for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of

accused No.10, deposed that on 18.06.2009 at about 11.00 A.M., the

police called him to Moghalpura Police Station and accordingly he

went to the police station where LW.7 was also present. The police

showed him a rental agreement (Ex.P3) and the same was seized from

accused No.10. During cross-examination, nothing incriminating was

elicited from him.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

a) This witness was also examined as PW.5 in S.C. No.484 of

2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while

dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of

2016 and 603 of 2022.

v) PW.4, panch for search proceedings, confession-cum-

seizure panchanama of accused Nos.2 to 7, deposed that the police of

Moghalpura called him to the police station on 16.05.2009 at about

6.00 P.M. When he went, LW.5 was also present. The police took

them to the house situated in Navanirman Nagar of Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad. The police found 6 or 7 kidnappers and 12 or 13 victims

in that house. Then, the police caught all the persons and tied them,

ascertained the victims and separated them from the culprits. Ex.P4 is

the search proceedings containing his signature and the signature of

LW.5. The police also seized the sticks and box with newspapers and

vehicle found in front of the house vide Ex.P5. Accused Nos.2 to 7

being kidnappers found in the said house were brought to the police

station by 8.30 P.M.

a) PW.4 further deposed that during interrogation, the police

recovered cash of Rs.3,000/- and three (03) cell phones and voter

identity card from the possession of accused No.2 and the same were

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

seized. In pursuance of confession of accused No.2, the police seized

Scorpio vehicle with number 8338. The police also seized cash of

Rs.2,000/- and odd, debit/credit cards from accused No.3; cash of

Rs.2,400/- or Rs.2,600/- from accused No.4; cash of Rs.2,000/- and a

cell phone from accused No.5; cash of Rs.2,000/- and odd and two

debit/credit cards from accused No.6; three (03) cell phones, Wallet

and cash of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.7. During cross-examination

nothing incriminating was elicited from him.

b) This witness was also examined as PW.6 in S.C. No.484 of

2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while

dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of

2016 and 603 of 2022.

vi) PW.5, panch for confessional-cum-seizure panchanama of

accused No.10, deposed that on 29.06.2009 at about 2.00 P.M., when

the police of Moghalpura P.S. called, he went there where accused

No.10 was found and confessed that he kept cash and jewellery got by

him in the house of his friend viz., Paul. Pursuant to the confession

made by accused No.10, they went to the house of Mr. Paul at Flat

No.104, Srinagar Colony, near Ameerpet, where the police recovered

cash of Rs.50,000/-, three (03) gold chains and a gold kada and the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

same were seized by the police under Exs.P12 to P14. During cross-

examination nothing incriminating was elicited from him.

a) This witness was also examined as PW.7 in S.C. No.484 of

2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while

dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of

2016 and 603 of 2022.

vii) PWs.6 to 8 are the Police Officers and they deposed with

regard to registration of crime, conducting investigation, recording

statements of witnesses as well as accused, recovery and seizure of

gold ornaments and cell phones etc., and laying of charge sheet

against the accused. During cross-examination nothing incriminating

was elicited from them.

a) PW.8 herein was also examined as PW.9 in S.C. No.484 of

2015 and his evidence was already discussed elaborately while

dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of

2016 and 603 of 2022.

viii) PW.9, the doctor who treated PW.1, deposed that on

16.05.2009 at 11.15 A.M., he examined PW.1 brought by P.C.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

No.6504 of Moghalpura Police Station. According to him, the

following injuries were found on the body of PW.1.

i) Multiple abrasions and contusion over back, thighs and buttocks;

ii) Bandage over scalp area.

a) PW.9 further deposed that he referred PW.1 to Neurology

Department for X-ray. As per X-ray, no fracture was found. He

opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and accordingly he

issued Ex.P16 - wound certificate. On the same day, he also

examined LW.2 - Mr. K.B. Shanjuman, but he did not find any

external injuries over his body.

b) During cross-examination, PW.9 specifically deposed that

on that day, he examined four (04) injured one after another who were

brought by the same constable. He denied the suggestion that the

injuries found on PW.1 cannot be caused by sticks.

29. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that PWs.1 and

2 are the victims. PW.2 is doing in real-estate business and out of

such business he came into contact with PW.1 and so also accused

No.7. Out of such acquaintance, accused No.7 informed PW.2 that

there is an antique piece namely 'Rice Puller' and asked him to search

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

a buyer. When PW.2 informed the same to PW.1, who expressed his

readiness, but however, asked LW.2 to go and see the same.

Accordingly, LW.2 met accused No.7 on 09.05.2009. In the said

process, PW.1 also came to Hyderabad and accused Nos.7 and 10 took

PW.1, PW.2 and LW.2 to the house situated in Jubilee Hills and

detained them illegally. By that time, some other victims were also in

the said house. Further, accused Nos.7 and 10 and other accused, who

were already there in the said house beat them and other victims with

sticks indiscriminately due to which, PW.1 and 2 sustained injuries,

which is substantiated by the evidence of PW.9, the doctor, who

treated them. According to PW.9, the doctor, PW.1 sustained the

injuries as mentioned above and accordingly he issued Ex.P16 -

wound certificate.

i) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would also reveal that the

accused not only beat PWs.1 and 2, but also robbed Ex.P1 - ATM

Card of ICICI Bank standing in the name of wife of PW.1 and cash of

Rs.4,00,000/- which was with him. Further, by using Ex.P1 - ATM

Card, the accused also withdrew an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh. PW.1

also further deposed that the accused forced him to talk to his family

members, bring money and then only they would release him. The

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

said evidence of PW.1 is supported and corroborated by the evidence

of PW.2. PW.2 also deposed that the accused robbed cash of

Rs.10,000/-, Cell Phone, Purse and Pan Card from him and an amount

of Rs.5,000/- from LW.2. The police of Moghalpura came and

rescued them and other victims.

ii) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also supported by the evidence

of PWs.3, 4 and 5, who deposed about confessions made by accused

Nos.2 to 7 and 9, recovery and seizure of cash from the said accused

persons. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more

particularly, PWs.1 to 5 and 9 proved the case of the prosecution that

the accused committed the aforesaid offences by causing injuries to

PWs.1 and 2 and committing robbery, such as cash etc. The evidence

of PWs.6 to 9 also establishes that after recording Ex.P2 - statement of

PW.2, a case was registered, investigation was conducted by recording

statements of witnesses and pursuance to the confessions made by the

accused, recovered the stolen property and the same was seized and,

therefore, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid

against the accused.

iii) Since this Court has already discussed while dealing with

Criminal Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

2022 with regard to the modus operandi adopted by the appellants in

commission of offences, threatening to kill the victims etc., there is no

need to repeat the conduct of the appellants herein also as the very

same appellants - accused committed the offences in these cases also.

iv) The trial Court considered the said aspects and in paragraph

Nos.15, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment gave a finding that the

appellants committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly

convicted them by imposing sentence of life imprisonment and ten

(10) years rigorous imprisonment on them for the offences under

Sections 364A and 395 of IPC, respectively. For the foregoing

discussion and also the discussion made while dealing with Criminal

Appeal Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195 and 940 of 2016 and 603 of 2022,

there is no error committed by the trial Court while recording

conviction and imposition of life imprisonment on the appellants

warranting interference by this Court. The appellants herein also

failed to make out any case and, therefore, all these appeals fail and

accordingly the same are liable to be dismissed.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

Criminal Appeal Nos.779, 788, 854, 1191 and 944 of 2016 and 600 of 2022 arising out of S.C. No.481 of 2015:

30. In his case, the offences alleged against the appellants -

accused Nos.5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 10 and 7 respectively are under Sections -

364A and 395 of IPC. The trial Court imposed life imprisonment and

ten (10) years of rigorous imprisonment on them. To prove its case,

the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 15 and marked Exs.P1 to P41

and MOs.1 to 16 were exhibited, while to disprove the same, the

accused got marked Exs.D1 to D14.

i) The victims in this case are PWs.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10. Out

of the said witnesses, PWs.4, 5 and 10 were also examined in S.C.

No.483 of 2015 as PWs.1, 9 and 2, while PWs.7 and 8 were examined

in S.C. No.484 of 2015 as PWs.1 and 4. Since their evidence has

already discussed above while dealing with Criminal Appeals

Nos.774, 787, 858, 1195, 940 of 2016, 603 of 2022 and Criminal

Appeal Nos.781, 786, 881, 1193, 943 of 2016 & 601 of 2022 and to

avoid repetition, there is no need to discuss once again herein. Now,

the only evidence of remaining victims (i.e., PWs.2, 3 and 6) apart

from the evidence of PW.1, who is the brother of PW.2, is relevant to

discuss here.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

ii) PW.1 is the complainant and younger brother of PW.2 while

PW.3 is the son of PW.2. He deposed that he is doing business in

jewellery in the name of 'Sri Chandra Jewellery. On the intervening

night of 14/15.05.2009 at about 12.20 A.M., PW.1 received a phone

call from mobile Number of PW.3 i.e., 9391029068 stating that PW.3

and his father (PW.2) were kidnapped. After informing the same,

PW.3 phone got switched off, even though he tried to call. Then, on

the same night, he approached Moghalpura Police Station and

informed the same. On the next day morning at about 11.30 A.M., he

received phone call from PW.3 and informed him that kidnappers

asking for ransom and if an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs is arranged,

they would be released.

a) PW.1 further deposed that thereafter he went to DCP, South

Zone and informed the same and gave Ex.P1 complaint. At about

2.00 P.M. on the same day, he received from the same cell phone.

Then, PW.2 spoke to him and asked him to arrange the said amount,

otherwise they would be killed by the kidnappers. After 30 minute,

once again he received call from his elder brother (PW.2), whom he

informed that he arranged Rs.4.00 lakhs and is also arranging balance

amount. When he asked PW.2 how to give the money and to whom,

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

PW.2 informed him that kidnappers would come in their Safari

Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 09 5189 and by seeing that

vehicle, he has to hand over the money to them.

b) PW.1 further deposed that the police team of Moghalpura

Police Station and team of DCP were also with him from 12.00 noon

onwards on that day. From 2.30 P.M. onwards for every half an hour,

he received phone call and by saying that he is pooling the money, he

gained time till 4.30 P.M. The police used that opportunity to trace

out the location of kidnappers with the help of phone calls received by

him. Then, he and the police went up to Jubilee Hills in his Car and

police vehicle. Nearby ATM of Axis Bank, they noticed the Safari

vehicle of PW.2 and two (02) persons were inside the vehicle. It was

about 5.00 P.M., one person was driving the vehicle and another at

beside him. He identified accused No.2 as the person driving the said

vehicle and accused No.4 as the person who sat beside him. The

police stopped that vehicle and accused Nos.2 and 4 tried to run away

leaving the vehicle. Then, the police chased them and caught them.

On questioning, accused Nos.2 and 4 led them to the house situated at

Jubilee Hills where the kidnappers and PWs.2 and 3 were there. He

also found 10 more victims and 14 kidnappers, who attacked the

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

police. However, the police caught 8 or 10 kidnappers. The victims

were having contusions and other injuries over their bodies and they

were having only underwear and their hands were tied with ropes.

There were injuries on the bodies of PWs.2 and 3. Among the

kidnappers, accused Nos.3, 5, 9 and 10 were also there. He

volunteered that accused No.10 is the head of gang of kidnappers.

PWs.2 and 3 informed him that accused No.8 took them stating that

there is a show about rice pulling coin and that they went along with

him and later they were kidnapped and they were beaten mercilessly

and that gold chain and eight rings were robbed by the accused.

During cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited from.

iii) PW.2, one of the victims, deposed that on 14.05.2009 at

about 9.00 A.M., when he and his son (PW.3) were in his office,

accused No.8 came and introduced himself and told him that there is a

Vessel with him which pulls rice and it is meant for sale and offered to

show it to them. Then, he, his son and friends of his son 2 in number

went in a Tata Safari vehicle bearing registration No.AP 12 5915.

Then, accused No.8 took them into a house situated nearby a School

in Jubilee Hills and met one Mr. Bhaskar and thereafter accused No.8

disappeared. Within 5 or 10 minutes, about ten persons came from up

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

stair and closed their mouths and beat them with fists and sticks

indiscriminately.

a) PW.2 further deposed that the accused robbed 8 gold rings,

gold bangle (Kada) and gold chain with locket from him and also

robbed a gold chain, two gold rings and three silver rings from PW.3.

Thereafter, they tied their hands with rope and undressed them leaving

only underwear and kept them in a room in the first floor. They told

him that if Rs.10.00 lakhs is given to them along with his Safari

vehicle, they will release them. He agreed to give the cash demanded

by him. Accused No.5 gave cell phone of PW.3 to him and asked him

to call PW.1. Then, PW.3 called PW.1 and told him about their kidnap

and asked him to arrange Rs.10.00 lakhs demanded by the accused.

Thereafter on 15.05.2009 at about 6.00 or 7.00 P.M., PW.1 came

along with police, who rescued them. There were about 12 to 15

victims.

b) During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that only after he

agreed to pay the ransom, they were allowed to make phone call to

PW.1. PW.3 called PW.1 twice. He has not given any documentary

evidence to prove that the gold robbed from him belonging to him.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

iv) PW.3, son of PW.2, also deposed on the very same lines as

deposed by PW.2. He further deposed that accused Nos.2 and 4 to 6

harassed them. In all, they were beaten four (04) times by giving gap

of one hour each time, to get ransom demanded. Nothing

incriminating was elicited during his cross-examination.

v) PW.6 deposed that he is doing real estate business in and

around Hyderabad. On 14.05.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., accused No.8

came to his house along with accused Nos.2 and 6 and introduced

accused No.2 as Sridhar and accused No.6 as Tanuj and told him that

they are also real estate agents. They also do business in antique

items, like Rice Pulling and staying so, they took him in Scorpio

vehicle to a duplex house situated at Jubilee Hills near TV5 Office for

showing rice pulling article. Soon after they entered into the house,

the accused took his ATM Card of ICICI bank, cell phone, wrist

watch, two gold rings from him forcibly. They also withdrew cash of

Rs.20,000/- from his account. By demanding money of Rs.3.00 lakhs,

they beat him with sticks. He further deposed on the same lines as

deposed by PWs.2 and 3. In the cross-examination, nothing

incriminating was elicited.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

vi) PW.11, PW.12 and PW.13 were also examined as PWs.5, 6

and 7 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and PWs.3, 4 and 5 in S.C. No.483 of

2015 and their evidence was already discussed above with regard to

confessions made by accused Nos.2 to 7 and 10, recovery of stolen

property and seizure of the same. Therefore, there is no need to

discuss once again.

vii) Similarly PW.14, Inspector of Police, was also examined

as PW.9 in S.C. No.484 of 2015 and his evidence was already

discussed above with regard to registration of crime etc., and,

therefore, there is no need to discuss his evidence also herein.

viii) PW.15, another Investigating Officer deposed that PW.14

handed over copy of Ex.P24 - FIR to him and entrusted the

investigation. He recorded the statement of PW.1 and thereafter he

went to the house of PWs.1 to 3 and found a motorcycle in that house.

On the instructions of DCP Task Force stating that the offence is

grave, he handed over the CD file to PW.14.

ix) PW.5, the doctor, who was also examined as PW.9 in S.C.

No.483 of 2015, deposed that on 16.05.2009 at 11.20 A.M., PW.2 was

brought to the hospital accompanied by P.C.No.6504 of Moghalpura

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

Police Station. According to him, he found the following injuries on

the body of PW.2.

i) A contusion marks present over back of right shoulder;

ii) Contusion present over the back.

The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P3 - wound

certificate.

a) On the same day, at 11.30 A.M., he examined PW.3, who

was brought by the very same constable and found the following

injuries:

i) Multiple contusion over back;

ii) 5 x 6 cm. contusion over back of left thigh;

iii) Swelling on right hand.

The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P4 - wound

certificate.

b) On the same day at 11.15 A.M., he examined PW.4 and

found the following injuries:

i) Multiple abrasions and contusion over back, thigh and buttocks;

ii) Bandage over the scalp area.

He referred him to Neurology Department for X-ray and as per X-ray,

no fracture was found. He issued Ex.P5 - wound certificate.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

c) On the same day at 11.40 A.M., he also examined LW.6, but

found no external injuries. He issued Ex.P6 - wound certificate.

d) He also examined LW.7 on the same day at 11.25 A.M., and

found the following injuries:

i) Contusions over both arms;

ii) Multiple abrasions over back.

The aforesaid injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P7 -

wound certificate.

e) He further deposed that the injuries sustained by the aforesaid

victims might have been caused by blunt weapons, like sticks.

Nothing incriminating was elicited during his cross-examination.

x) In view of the above evidence, it is clear that the accused

beat the victims indiscriminately causing the aforesaid injuries. They

also robbed gold chains, rings, wrist watch, cash and ATM Cards etc.

Further, the accused also demanded the victims for ransom money.

The victims also received injuries on account of beating by the

accused with sticks. The acts committed by the accused are grave and

serious. As discussed supra, the same would come within the ambit of

Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC.

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

xi) The trial Court having dealt with the evidence on record,

both oral and documentary in paragraph Nos.9, 29 and 30 gave a

finding that the appellants herein have committed the aforesaid

offences. For the reasons mentioned above and on consideration of

the evidence, we find no error in the impugned judgment warranting

interference by this Court. The appellants failed to make out any case

and, therefore, the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Nos.789, 795, 859, 1189 of 2016 & 602 of 2022 (arising S.C. No.295 of 2011) and Crl.A. No.946 of 2016 (arising out of S.C. No.296 of 2011):

31. The trial Court passed a common judgment in S.C. Nos.295

and 296 of 2011. Challenging the judgment dated 25.07.2016, accused

Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4 and 7 filed Crl.A. Nos.789, 795, 859, 1189 of 2016

and 602 of 2022, while Crl.A. No.946 of 2016 was filed by accused

No.10 challenging the very same judgment in S.C. No.296 of 2011.

Though two separate S.C. numbers were assigned as 295 and 296 of

2011, both of them arose out of one and the same crime i.e., Crime

No.537 of 2009 of Rajendranagar Police Station.

i) In both these cases, the appellants - accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 4,

7 and 10 were convicted for the offences under Sections - 364-A and

395 of IPC and accordingly imposed life imprisonment and ten (10)

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

years rigorous imprisonment on them, respectively. During trial, the

prosecution to prove its case has examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked

Exs.P1 to P11, whereas, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on behalf of the

accused.

ii) Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 are victims and

they were examined in S.C. No.481 of 2015 as PWs.6, 3 and 2,

respectively. Their evidence has already been referred and discussed

above at length. There is no need to discuss the same once again

herein.

iii) PW.5 in this case was also examined in S.C. No.481 of

2015 as PW.12, PW.4 in S.C. No.483 of 2015 and PW.6 in S.C.

No.484 of 2015. He is the panch witness for confession and recovery

in S.C. No.481 of 2015 and his evidence has already discussed above,

and there is no need to discuss the same once again herein.

iv) Similarly PW.8, Inspector of Police, was also examined in

S.C. No.481 of 2015 as PW.14, in S.C. No.483 of 2015 as PW.8 and

in S.C. No.484 of 2015 as PW.9 and his evidence has already been

discussed above with regard to registration of Crime No.69 of 2009 of

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

Moghalpura Police Station, and, therefore, there is no need to discuss

the same once again herein.

v) PWs.6 and 7, Inspectors of Police deposed with regard to

registration of crime, conducting investigation, recording statements

of victims, confessions of accused, recovery, seizure and laying

charge sheet against the accused.

32. As discussed above with regard to the acts committed by

the accused in abduction of the victims, beating them with sticks

indiscriminately, robbery of gold chains, rings, cash, ATM Cards,

withdrawal of amount and demanding them for ransom money etc.

Accused beat the victims indiscriminately due to which, most of the

victims received injuries and they were treated by the doctors. The

said acts of the appellants herein squarely fall within the ambit of

Sections - 364A and 395 of IPC. All the said aspects were proved by

the prosecution by producing cogent and legally acceptable evidence

in the manner stated above. The accused failed to disprove the

prosecution case by way of rebuttal evidence. The trial Court having

discussed and considered the entire evidence, more particularly in

paragraph Nos.18 and 19 came to a conclusion that the accused

committed the aforesaid offences and accordingly convicted and

KL,J & SKS,J Crl.A. Nos.774 of 2016 & batch

sentenced them in the manner stated above. The impugned judgment

of the trial Court is reasoned and well-founded. The appellants herein

failed to make out any case to interfere with the said judgment by this

Court. Thus, these appeals also fail and the same are liable to be

dismissed.

CONCLUSION:

33. In view of the foregoing discussion, all these criminal

appeals are dismissed confirming the conviction and imposition of

sentences of imprisonment for life and other imprisonments

mentioned above by learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar on the appellants - accused, vide impugned

judgments, all dated 25.07.2016 in S.C.Nos.484 of 2015, 483 of 2015,

481 of 2015, 296 of 2011 and 295 of 2011, respectively for the

aforesaid offences.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in all these appeals shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

_________________ K. SUJANA, J 7th June, 2024 Mgr