IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. SURESH REDDY, B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, JJ.
Godugula Keshava - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2458 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2483 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2559 Of 2018, Criminal Appeal No. 2570 Of 2018
Decided On : 03-04-2024
JUDGMENT :
(B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.)
1. As all the four Criminal Appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case i.e., S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu, they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2. Accused No.4 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2458/2018, A-3 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2483/2018, A-5 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2559/2018 and A-1, A-2, A-6 and A-7 in S.C.129/2012 on the file of II Addl.Sessions Judge, Kadapa at Prodduturu filed Crl.A.2570/2018.
3. They along with A-8 were charged for the alleged offence punishable under sections 364-A, 342, 307 and 506 IPC in Cr.No.99/2011 of Yerraguntla Police Station.
4. During pendency of the trial, A-8 died and case against him was abated. A-1 to A-7 were tried by the learned II Asst. Sessions Judge under five charges. First charge is U/s.364-A IPC against A-3 to A-6, second charge is U/s.364-A IPC r/w.34 IPC against A-1 and A-2, third charge is 342 IPC against A-7 and A-8, fourth charge is U/s.307 r/w.511 IPC against A-3 to A-6 and the fifth charge is U/s.506 IPC against A-3 to A-6.
5. The substance of the charge is that on 16.06.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. while P.W-1 and A-1 was going in Bolero vehicle, A-3 to A-6 intercepted the said vehicle, and entered into the Bolero vehicle, sprinkled chilli powder in the eyes of P.W-1 and abducted him in the said car and took him to the house of A-8 and confined him there by keeping watch by A-7 and A-8, and also threatened P.W-1 demanding ransom of Rs.30,00,000/- from P.W-3, and thereby committed offence punishable under sections 364-A, 342, 307 r/w.511 IPC and 506 IPC.
6. After completion of trial, the learned II Addl.Sessions Judge convicted A-1, A-3 to A-6 for the offence U/s.364-A IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The learned II Addl.Sessions Judge also convicted A-2 and A-7 for the offence U/s.411 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The learned II Addl.Sessions Judge further convicted A-4 to A-6 for the offence U/s.506(ii) IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. The substantial sentences imposed against the accused were directed to run concurrently.
7. The case of the prosecution as per evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
(a) A-1 is working as a driver for a Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TB 5393 hired by L&T Company, Kadapa, arranged by A-3; P.W-1 is working as Chief Engineering Management in L&T Company; A-1 is working under him as driver.
(b) On 16.06.2011 P.W-1 started at Kadapa in the above Bolero vehicle driven by A-1; Sri P.Bala Chander (P.W-3) accompanied P.W-1 upto Kamalapuram, thereafter P.W-1 proceeded towards Mangapatnam for inspection work. He was returning from Kalamalla railway station and proceeding towards Mangapatnam along with A-1; the vehicle reached a place near Chilamkur village road at about 12.00/12.30 p.m.; when the vehicle crossing a culvert, a person came opposite causing obstruction to the vehicle; A-1 stopped the vehicle; immediately A-4 to A-6 and another person came to the vehicle, opened back door, two persons entered into the jeep, sat beside P.W-1;person who obstructed the movement of jeep came there from front side by the side door and sat back side of P.W-1; the people, who entered into the jeep from back door sprinkled chilli powder on the face of P.W-1; tied a towel coveri
AI
The prosecution must prove both kidnapping and a threat to cause death or hurt to establish an offence under Section 364-A IPC; failure to do so leads to modification of charges.
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
Child witness - child witnesses were detained at the police station and, therefore, the court had observed that they were tutored by the police.
The prosecution must prove both kidnapping and a ransom demand for conviction under Section 364-A; failure to do so warrants only convictions under lesser charges.
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Interpretation of the Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding that it must evolve with the felt necessities of time, to meet the aspirations and challenges of the present and futu....
The prosecution must prove all elements of Section 364(A) IPC, including a clear connection between the act of hurt and the ransom demand; failure to do so warrants a lesser charge.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.