Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 787
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
B.A. Patil, M.G. Uma, JJ.
Vishwanath - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100169 of 2017, 838 of 2017, 100247 of 2017
Decided On : 24-07-2020
Vijetha R Naik, Advocate, J. Basavaraj, Advocate, H.M. Dharigond, Advocate, V.M. Banakar, Advocate, M.H. Patil, Advocate, Basavaraj S Satannavar, Advocate
In cases of doubt, the benefit should be given to the accused. The evidence presented by the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Evidence, Recovery, and Common Intention - [KIDNAPPING] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [IPC 364A, IPC 365, IPC 394, IPC 34] - The court analyzed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the recovery made by the police. The court found inconsistencies and lack of reliability in the evidence, leading to doubt in the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused kidnapped the victim for ransom, but the defense argued that the evidence did not support the conviction. The victim's testimony and the recovery of items were central to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and lack of reliability in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted all the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be given to the accused. The court carefully analyzed the evidence and found it lacking in reliability and consistency.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction, and ordered the acquittal of all the accused. The accused were ordered to be released forthwith, and the bail and surety bonds of one of the accused were cancelled.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - Criminal Appeal No.100169/2017 has been preferred by the appellants - accused Nos.2 and 3, Criminal Appeal No.838/2017 has been filed by appellant - accused No.4 and Criminal Appeal No.100247/2017 has been filed by the appellant - accused No.1, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur in S.C. No.67/2011 dated 25.04.2017.
2. We have heard Smt.Vijetha R. Naik for Sri.Basavaraj J. for the appellant-accused No.2 by virtual hearing so also heard Sri.Basavaraj J. for appellant- accused No.2, Sri.H.M.Dharigond for appellant-accused No.3, Sri.M.H.Patil for appellant-accused No.4 and Sri.Basavaraj S.Satannavar for appellant-accused No.1, who are present before the Court. We have also heard the learned Additional S.P.P. Sri.V.M.Banakar for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.4-Bhavya contacted the victim- Mallikarjuna Dyamaller over his mobile phone, who was known to her and asked him to come near Mruthyunjaya Kalyana Mantap, Ranebennur on 04.06.2011 in the afternoon. When the victim came to the said spot at about 02:30 p.m., accused No.4 contacted accused No.1- Chidanandayya over the mobile and informed him about coming of the victim near the said Kalyana Mantap so as to kidnap him for ransom by threatening. It is further alleged that accused No.1-Chidanandayya brought with him accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Vishwanath and Kumar in a Maruti Van bearing registration No.KA-27/M-3773. The said Maruti Van belonged to C.W.12. From the said spot, the victim was threatened and was kidnapped and by showing the iron kandli and knife, they snatched cash of Rs.20,000/-, one gold ring, one Nokia company mobile, one ATM card of SBI, one ATM card of Union Bank of India and another ATM card of Union Bank of India, withdrawal slip of SBI and UBI, one golden bracelet, driving licence, one passport size photo, one golden chain, another golden ring and one Influx company watch.
4. It is further alleged that with a common intention, accused persons obtained the code numbers of ATM cards and by threatening the victim, withdrawn the amount from ATM, pertaining to the victim and brother-inlaw. It is further alleged that accused persons with common intention, wrongfully confined the victim in a rented house, where accused No.1 was residing and also demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as ransom from the complainant, who is none other than the father-in-law of the victim and on the basis of the said allegations, a complaint was filed. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, apprehended the accused. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court took cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and after hearing both sides, the charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty. They claimed to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution got examined as many as 21 witnesses, marked 32 documents and 25 material objects. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons were recorded by putting incriminating materials as against them and they have not led any oral evidence. However, during the course of cross-examination, the accused persons have got marked Exs.D-1 to D-6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court below came to the conclusion that the materials placed on record is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and convicted. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, appellants - accused are before this Court.
6. The main grounds urged by the learned counsels for the appellants - accused Nos.1 and 2 are that the learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the evidence and materials placed on record, has come to a wrong conclusion and has
