Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 817
High Court of Karnataka (Circuit Bench At Gulbarga)
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
Gnyanesh @ Gyanagouda
Versus
The State of Karnataka
Criminal Appeal No. 3566 of 2010
Decided On : 16-12-2013
For the Appellant:Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Sanjay A. Patil, Addl. SPP.
The sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
kidnapping - Criminal Law - Section 363 of IPC - Section 363, 342, 364 and 364(A) R/W Section 34 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
Accused No.1 appealed the order of conviction and sentence for kidnapping a minor boy for ransom. The victim was allegedly kept in wrongful confinement and a ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- was demanded.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that although most witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of the victim and his friend inspired confidence, leading to the conviction of accused No.1 under Section 363 of IPC. The court reduced the sentence from seven years to three years rigorous imprisonment considering the immediate release of the victim.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of accused No.1.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of the victim and his friend was deemed sufficient to establish the guilt of accused No.1, despite contradictions and hostile witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, and the substantive sentence for accused No.1 was reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
1. This appeal is by the accused No.1 challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur in SC No.5/2007 dated 11.03.2010 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of two months. Though the charge is framed for the offence under Section 364-A, ultimately the accused is convicted and sentenced under Section 363 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused No.2-Shankar. This appellant is accused No.1.
2. It is alleged that on 15.07.2006 around 1.30 p.m. when Basavaraj Sasanur, a minor boy was near Shanti circle of Muddebihal, accused No.1 kidnapped him for ransom. It is also alleged that the victim was kept in wrongful confinement in a garden land of accused No.2 who is from Tikkota village by tying his legs and hands and demanded a ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of the victim. Police after registering the FIR, investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet.
3. As per Section 209 of Cr.P.C., there is a committal order. The Sessions Judge having framed the charge for the offences under Sections 363, 342, 364 and 364(A) R/W Section 34 of IPC, after trial, held the accused No.1 guilty of offence under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced him. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused No.2 of the alleged charge.
4. PW.3-Kasturibai, mother of victim though has stated about kidnapping of her son and filing of complaint by her husband, but she never revealed the accused have kidnapped her son.
5. Another witness PW.4 Shivaputrappa Sajjan who is also a teacher has stated that victim had attended the school on 15.07.2006. But, he turned hostile to the version of the prosecution regarding kidnapping by the accused.
6. PW.5-Malakajappa Mali who is the son of accused No.2, has not supported the version of the prosecution that accused No.2 has harboured this Basavaraj. He has turned hostile to said version. One more witness PW.6-Ambanna Shankar Mali who is also son of accused No.2 has turned hostile. PWs.8, 9 and 10 who are the neighbours of accused No.2 are examined to speak about kidnapping and confinement of the child. But, they have not supported the version of prosecution.
7. PW.13 one Bhimashya is examined to speak about kidnapping the child by accused No.2 and confining him in the garden land of PW.13. He has not supported the said version. PW.16-Indirabai, telephone booth owner has stated that accused have not telephoned to the parents of the Basanagouda to demand ransom. PW.20-Ninganagouda who is a panch witness also has not supported. PW.21-Shivanand who is also panch witness, has not supported the seizure of auto-rickshaw. PW.22-Ghanamatesh Guraddi, a panch witness to the scene of occurrence panchanama from where the victim was abducted in a Tum Tum vehicle, has not supported the said version. Even PW.23 Hanamanthraya Biradar, PW.24- Mahantagouda Dorigol who is pancha to the seizure of auto-rickshaw, PW.25 Prabhavati Sasanur, elder sister of the victim, have not supported the version of the prosecution regarding kidnapping of the victim.
8. PW.26 one Gouramma, a circumstantial witness has partly supported the version of the prosecution to the effect that Basanagouda not returning home after he went to attend the school. PW.28 one Sachin Kuntoji has half-heartedly supported the version of the prosecution to the effect that Basanagouda - the victim was his friend and they were studying in Sharada Competition School. For the remaining aspect he turned hostile. PW.1- Sanganagouda Patil, the grand-father of the victim is a circumstantial witness and has spoken about his grand- son Basanagouda who had been to school at 9.00 a.m. in the morning, but not returned. He has half-heartedly supported the version of prosecution.
9. PW.2 Basanagouda @ Basavaraj Sasanur, the victim himself has stated about accused kidnapping him and also identi
