Questioning the Judgment & Order of acquittal dated 26.8.2011 passed by the Fast Track CourtI, Mysore in S.C. No.120/2010, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.1302/2011 and the original complainant (PW.2) has filed Criminal Appeal No.963/201.

Since both the appeals are filed questioning the Judgment & Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in S.C. No.120/2010, they are heard and decided together.

The accused is charged, tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 302 r/w 201 of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased C.G. Sharan, aged about 9 years (during the relevant point of time), is the son of the complainant (PW.2); he was studying in 4th Standard in Citizen School, Nanjangud; on 26.8.2008 deceased went to school as usual; however, he did not return back to the residence after school hours i.e., even after 3.30 p.m.; the complainant and his relative searched for the deceased in the school; complainant could not get any clue and hence he lodged a missing complaint as per Ex.P2 at 4 p.m. on 27.8.2008; said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.128/2008 in Nanjanagud Town Police Station; subsequently, supplementary statement of the complainant is recorded as per Ex.P3 on 28.8.2008 at 11 a.m.; in the said statement, the complainant has stated before the Police that the schoolmates of his son viz., Prashanthkumar (PW.9) and Rohith (PW.10) had seen his son Sharan leaving the school at 3.30 p.m. on 26.8.2008 by sitting as a pillion rider on black coloured ‘Apachi motorcycle’. Based on such statement of the complainant dated 28.8.2008, the offence under Section 363 of IPC is alleged against unknown person and investigation also started. Ultimately, Final Investigation Report came to be filed on 15.4.2010 for the offences under Sections 363, 302 and 201 of IPC by the Sub-Inspector of Police – PW.33.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 35 witnesses and got marked 50 Exhibits and six material objects. On behalf of the defence, 15 Exhibits were got marked. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt in his favour.

4. Sri Chandramouli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant (PW.2) taking us through the entire material on record and the Judgment of the Court below submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are amply proved; since the chain of circumstances is fully proved and as the same leads to the only hypothesis of guilt against the accused, the trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused. He further submits that the accused cleverly did not leave any clue for the Investigating Officer to find out the real culprit at the first instance; however after thorough investigation, the Police were able to gather clinching material against the accused; the accused is identified by PWs.9, 10, 15 and 16 as the person who took the victim alongwith him just prior to the incident in question; accused is in dire need of money and he knew very well that the parents of the deceased were having huge sums of money in the form of sale proceeds of the land belonging to Siddamalla Swamiji; the accused in order to demand ransom from PWs.2 and 8, kidnapped the deceased from the lawful custody of his parents; the proved circumstances relating to the extra judicial confession, last seen together etc., are not properly considered by the Court below. On these, among other grounds, he prays for reversal of the Judgment of the Court below. Learned Government Advocate also argued supporting the contentions of Sri Chandramouli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant. Per contra, Sri Chandrashekhar R.P., learned advocate for the acquitted accused argued in support of the judgment of the Court below contending that the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused