Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1611
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N.Anand Venkatesh, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ.
Gunasekaran - Appellant
Versus
The State through The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl. A. (MD)Nos.97, 144 and 222 of 2023 Crl.A(MD) No.97 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2026
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar,Additional Public Prosecutor
The necessity for prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt is critical, particularly when dealing with children's suffering in kidnapping cases.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 364A - Appeals against conviction for kidnapping for ransom - Conviction of some accused upheld due to overwhelming evidence; while others acquitted for lack of evidence and benefit of doubt. Evidence included testimonies from key witnesses, recovery of ransom money, and analyses of mobile conversation recordings (Paras 112 - 110).
(B) Evidence - Standard in criminal trials - Requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and justifiable identification of accused. Inconsistent witness testimonies and lack of substantial evidence against certain accused necessitated their acquittal (Paras 96, 104).
(C) Child Witness - Testimony deemed credible, emphasizing the court's duty to assess threats from the perspective of children. Courts must ensure serious consideration of children's suffering in criminal offenses (Paras 108, 109).
Facts of the case:
An elaborate kidnapping for ransom involved multiple accused persons and the detailed roles of each in the crime. Two young girls were abducted, and ransom of Rs.50 lakhs was negotiated. Various accused were arrested post-investigation, with substantial evidence provided against some (Paras 1- 7).
Findings of Court:
Conviction upheld for A1, A2, A3, and A9 due to sufficient evidence; A4, A5, A6, A8, and A10 acquitted for lack of evidence or established presence in the crime. Evidence procedure and credibility of witnesses critically assessed (Paras 111, 112).
Issues: The primary issues included sufficiency of evidence against each accused, credibility of witnesses, and adequacy of identifying the accused (Paras 21-23, 70).
Ratio Decidendi: The court's analysis emphasized the necessity of a high evidentiary burden in criminal cases and the requirement that any ambiguities in evidence be resolved in favor of the accused (Par 66).
Result: Appeals allowed for A4, A5, A6, A8, and A10 with acquittal, while convictions affirmed for A1, A2, A3, and A9 (Paras 112 - 113).
JUDGMENT :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
These appeals have been filed by the accused persons aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in the following manner:
| Rank of the Accused | Appeal No. |
|---|---|
| A6 | 97/2023 |
| A2, A3, A4, A5, A9 and A10 | 144/2023 |
| A1 and A8 | 222/2023 |
against the judgment passed in SC NO.267/2019 dated 21.12.2022 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai convicting and sentencing the appellants in the following manner:
The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 was residing in a joint family in Madurai. They were having a Mill in which the father of A1 was working as an Accountant for several years. After his demise, solatium was given to the family of the deceased. It is alleged that A1 and his family was not satisfied with the amount given as solatium and hence, A1 is said to have conspired with other accused persons for kidnapping the children of PW1 for ransom.
2.1. On 16.11.2017 at about 8.10 a.m., PW3, who was the driver working under PW1, took the children of PW1 in an Innova Car bearing registration No.TN64 P6666 from the house to drop them at VMJ School situated at New Ramnad Road, Madurai. A1 and A10 dressed as Traffic Police came along with A3 and stopped the Innova car on the pretext of conducting search. A3, at this point of time, is said to have taken custody of the car and he compelled PW3 to go to the back seat of the car.
2.2. A1 and A10 got into the car and is said to have kidnapped the two girl children. A2 is said to have followed in his motorbike the Innova Car in which the two girl children were kidnapped. PW3 was administered with Haloperidol-IP medicine by A1 and he became unconscious.
2.3. A4 and A5 were waiting in a TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.TN-07-AQ-0495 near a vacant land and the two girl children were shifted to the said car and they were taken to the house of A9. A9 took the children into her custody in her house.
2.4. A3 drove the Innova Car along with A10 and PW3 and PW3 was dropped at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and the Innova Car has also parked in the hospital.
2.5. A2 thereafter called PW5, who is the co-brother of PW1 and he was informed about the kidnapping of the two children and ransom of Rs.Two crores was demanded. The family of PW1 and PW5 in order to save the children consented to give Rs.50 lakhs. This was informed to A2 in a conversation that took place over mobile phone by PW5 and A2 instructed the amount to be kept near the electric post at Madurai Tamil Sangam Building.
2.6. PW1 and PW5 left with no other option managed to arrange for the funds and kept the amount in the chosen place as directed by A2. This amount was collected by A5 and it was handed over to A7 to ensure safe custody to A1. This amount was lying in the house of A7, who is alleged to be aware of the fact that the amount was towards kidnapping the children of PW1.
2.7. After the ransom amount was paid, A1 and A3 arranged an auto-rickshaw owned by PW19 and the two kidnapped children were taken from the house of A9 and they were dropped near Chandramathi Mahal, behind the house of PW1.
2.8. In the meantime, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) on 16.11.2017 at about 21 hrs., before PW26, who registered an FIR (Ex.P40) in Crime No.1134 of 2017 for offence under Section 364A IPC.
2.9. PW27 took up the investigation and he arrested A1 to A4 on 19.11.2017 and based on their confession statement, recovered the injection with syringe, Indica Car, Haloperidol medicine and cash of Rs.16,23,500/- was recovered from A1. Insofar as A2 is concerned, cash of Rs.10,20,000/- was recovered. Insofar as A3 and A4 are concerned, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from each of the accused person. The two wheeler was recovered from A2.
3. On the next day, ie., on 20.11.2017, PW27 arrested A6 and A8 and recovered the police uniform dresses and other materials from A6 along with cash of Rs.2 lakhs. A mobile phone was recovered from A8. PW27 arrested A7 and recovered cash of Rs
