THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
CRIMIAL APPEAL No. 1298 of 2010
% 22.04.2014
Between:
# T.Nagaraju and others.
.... APPELLANTS Versus $ State of Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENT < Gist:
> Head Note:
! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS:- Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :- Public Prosecutor ? Cases Referred:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1298 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
To connote or point out that the evidence in a given case is very weak, the general adage used is that even a dog cannot be convicted with the evidence on record. This case presents an example of that. It is rather unfortunate that six persons are languishing in jail since 2010 on being convicted and handed out the sentence of imprisonment for life. On every aspect, the case proceeded, just on the wrong lines.
P.W.2 is said to be a person hailing from Vijayawada, doing business in real estate. He is the nephew of P.W.1, who was living at Hyderabad. On 04.09.2006, P.W.2 is said to have received a phone call from one Sri Prasad Rao to the effect that the land nearby Ramoji Film City is available for sale and the discussion in relation thereto can be undertaken, if P.W.2 meets him. It is stated that P.W.2 came to Hyderabad on 05.09.2006 and as instructed by Prasad Rao, he proceeded to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Cross Roads in a Maruthi Car, together with his friend, P.W.3. Prasad Rao is said to have joined them in the Car, and on his instructions, the Car proceeded towards Ramoji Film City. On the way, about six persons were said to be present near a statue and out of them, four have boarded the Maruthi Car and asked P.W.2 to start. When questioned about the destination, they are said to have threatened him at the point of a pistol like object, putting it on his neck and that the Car was taken to Ramoji Film City.
On finding that P.W.2 did not return even during night and out of curiosity,
P.W.1 telephoned him. P.W.2 is said to have replied him stating that the deal is in progress and he may not come in the night. At about 11.45 p.m., P.W.2 is said to have called P.W.1 to arrange about Rs.1 crore for purchase of the land. On the next day morning, another call is said to have been received by P.W.1 for arranging at least Rs.50,00,000/-. In the afternoon, P.W.1 is said to have received a phone call from two persons, by name Vikram and Jeevan, stating that they kidnapped
P.W.2 and unless a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- is paid, they would kill P.W.2.
Narrating this, P.W.1 submitted a complaint, Ex.P1, before Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station. That led to the registration of Crime No.786 of 2006. The matter is said to have been dealt with by the Task Force of the City Police, and by arranging a decoy party, the Task Force rescued P.Ws.2 and 3 and arrested A1 to A6.
After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused, alleging the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad as S.C.No.105 of 2010. The accused pleaded not guilty and in the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. M.Os.1 to 9 were also taken on record. Through its judgment, dated 08.10.2010, the trial Court held all the accused guilty of the offence alleged against them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Hence, this appeal.
Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Sri A.Dasharath and Sri M.Achuta Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submit that no crime, whatever was registered when Ex.P1 was submitted and everything was done in a surreptitious manner. They contend that though P.Ws.2 and 3 were declared hostile, the trial Court convicted all the accused. They submit that even if the case of the prosecution is to be taken as true, the real accused must be Prasad Rao and three others who are said to have forcibly taken P.Ws.2 and 3 to an unknown place and Vikram and Jeevan, who are said to have telephoned P.W.1 to arrange for a ransom and none of them shown as accused. Learned counsel submit that all the accused, who are innocent citizens, were made to suffer just for the fancy of some irresponsible and dishonest police officials and that there was a different purpose altogether which the prosecution witnesses and the officials of the Department wanted to achieve. They submit that the trial Court has ignored the basic principles of law and had virtually played with the lives of the innocent citizens.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that though P.Ws.2 and 3 were declared hostile, the information available on record was sufficient to hold that the accused are guilty of the offences alleged against them. She contends that P.W.6, the Inspector of Police, gave a detailed account of the developments that have taken place on arranging a decoy party and nothing was elicited from the witness, to doubt what he stated in the chief-examination.
We are indeed shocked and surprised to see the manner in which the case was handled by the prosecution as well as the trial Court. Ex.P1 is said to be the starting point in the case. It was submitted by P.W.1, the paternal uncle of P.W.2, on 5/6.09.2006. It reads as under:
“My brother’s son Mr.Ramesh M left the house in Maruthi Car No. AP 16 AA 556 at Ameerpet on receiving a phone call on 4th September, 2006 at 17.00 hours. He told that he would return during night for dinner. As he did not return for dinner, I made a call to his cell phone. He told that that he was entering it to land deal for which he wanted us to pay Rs.1 crore to complete the deal by tomorrow afternoon. Then only he can return. We came to know that today morning that he requested his parents also to arrange money to complete the deal. Subsequently, we received phone calls twice in the morning and demanded to arrange a minimum of Rs.50,00,000/- unless it is arranged and the deal is completed he could not return home.
Today afternoon, we received phone calls in the names of Vikram and Jeevan saying that they kidnapped Ramesh for Ransom and demanded to pay Rs.50,00,000/-, otherwise they will kill him.”
It is important to note that the Station House Officer, who received Ex.P1, did not register any crime, though it was mentioned that a case under Section 364-A I.P.C. is taken up for investigation. The First Information Report was registered only on 06.09.2006. The date of occurrence of the offence is mentioned as 04.09.2006 and reference is made to Ex.P1 as constituting the basis. It is important to note that the First Information Report was received by the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 08.09.2006 through a Constable. The names of Vikram and Jeevan that figured in Ex.P1 were mentioned as accused in the First Information Report. The record does not disclose that any alteration in the First Information Report was affected as regards the names of the accused. The trial Court did not bestow its attention as to how the names of two persons that were mentioned in the First Information Report were deleted and how A1 to A6, whose names did not figure in the First Information Report, are sought to be prosecuted.
In his deposition, P.W.1 stated that after he submitted Ex.P1 in the mid night of 05.09.2006, he again received a telephone call at 11.00 a.m. on 09.09.2006 from the persons who informed him about the kidnap and demanded him to arrange money. He did not mention as to what he did, in the intervening three days. He is said to have approached the Police on 09.09.2006 and that they asked him to contact the Task Force Sub-Inspector. An Inspector, by name Sri Srinivasa Rao, P.W.6, is said to have asked him to hand over money to him for a decoy trap and thereupon, he arranged and handed over Rs.4,00,000/- to P.W.6. He stated that he did not accompany P.W.6, but 10 to 15 days later, he was returned the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. He did not mention as to when P.Ws.2 and 3 were released. None of the aspects mentioned above were reflected in Ex.P1 or in any other document, which is referable to P.W.1.
P.W.2 is the person, who is said to have been actually kidnapped and P.W.3 is his friend, who accompanied him. P.W.2 stated that on the 4th day of a month, which he does not remember, he came to the house of P.W.1 at Hyderabad in connection with a real estate deal. As instructed by Prasad Rao, he is said to have gone in his car up to the statue of Umesh Chandra at Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar around 5.00 p.m. and there, Prasad Rao and others have boarded the Car. He deposed that he received a phone call from P.W.1 at about 8.30 p.m., and that he informed him that it would take some time. He has also stated in the evidence that when demand was being made for money, as ransom, P.W.3 asked one Shaik Zubair Ahmed, P.W.4, to arrange it and that the latter brought a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and delivered to the persons waiting at L.B.Nagar Petrol Bunk. The parents of P.W.2 are said to have expressed their difficulty in arranging for Rs.50,00,000/- demanded by the persons in the car. At about 10.30 p.m., on 9th of the said month, the police are said to have come to the place, together with one Sri Prasad Rao and rescued them. Since he deposed that no statement was recorded from him by the police, the Public Prosecutor made a request to the Court to declare him as hostile and the Court acceded to the request. Nothing significant was elicited from him in the cross-examination by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.3 is almost on the same lines.
P.W.4 is the person, who is said to have handed over a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the two persons. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say the place and time of recording the statement by the police, nor its contents. P.W.5 is a Constable, who is said to be working in Task Force and P.W.6 is the Inspector of Police, who is also working in Task Force.
The evidence of P.W.6 is somewhat interesting. He stated that on coming to know that the members of a kidnapper gang were coming to Vijayalakshmi Theatre for collecting ransom, he informed his superior officers and obtained permission to lay a trap and in the meanwhile, P.W.1 is said to have come to him and handed over Rs.4,00,000/-. He is said to have given the cash to P.W.5 and instructed him to give signal while handing over cash to abductors. A person is said to have come on a Hero Honda Motorcycle and collected the amount from P.W.5 and on signal being given, P.W.6 is said to have apprehended the said person, who turned out to be A1. P.W.6 stated that though he wanted to secure local panch witnesses, no one came forward and by taking the help of two passers-by, he prepared a panchanama and recorded the confessional statement of A1. On the basis of the information furnished by A1, he is said to have gone to the premises where the other kidnappers and P.Ws.2 and 3 were present and caused arrest of the kidnappers.
The role said to have been played by P.W.6 is highly objectionable and in a way, amounts to gross misconduct and misuse of the position as a police official. He did not even know the number of the crime, nor the case was referred to him by any police station. His statement about the manner in which he received Rs.4,00,000/- from P.W.1 is highly objectionable and that by itself, may constitute misconduct, if not dereliction of duties. It is highly unbecoming of him, to have indulged in such nefarious activities, that too causing arrest of as many as six persons, and recording their confessions in the absence of any panch witnesses.
P.W.6 further stated that after completing the so-called exercise, he took all the accused to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station and handed over them. His version is not supported even by the so-called victims of the kidnap. It only shows that P.W.6 indulged in the activities of this nature for his own benefit and implicated the innocent persons, A1 to A6. The entire process of the prosecution was reduced to the ridiculous levels and unfortunately, the trial Court has chosen to inflict the maximum punishment of imprisonment for life upon A1 to A6.
Even if the evidence on record is taken into account and the basic principles are applied, not even a dog can be convicted. When the so-called kidnapped person did not support the case of the prosecution and when the persons, who are said to have kidnapped P.W.2, i.e. Prasad Rao and four others and two persons i.e. Vikram and Jeevan, who are said to have demanded ransom from P.W.1, were not even arrayed as accused, it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court thought of convicting A1 to A6, whose names were not mentioned in the First Information Report. The trial Court has also blinked at several procedural lapses such as,
(i) non-registration of crime when Ex.P1 was submitted;
(ii) delay in submitting the First Information Report to the Court; and
(iii) non alteration of the First Information Report either to drop the names of Vikram and Jeevan or inclusion of names of A1 to A6.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.105 of 2010 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 08.10.2010, against the appellants- accused, are set aside. The appellants-accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants-accused shall be refunded to them.
We direct the Commissioner of Police to bestow his attention, to the manner in which the entire case was dealt with and examine the role of the then Sub- Inspector of Police, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Sri J.Ravinder, and the then Inspector of Police, Central Zone, Task Force, Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, duly giving opportunity to them.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J M.S.K.JAISWAL,J Dt: 22.04.2014
Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl