TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) r/w. Section 34 of IPC. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW12 Rishab @ Bharath, a minor boy aged about 8 years was playing in front of his house bearing No.19/39, situated at Saraswathipura Main Road, Nandini Layout, Bangalore, at about 6.30 p.m. on 07.11.2003. Accused persons in furtherance of their common intention of making money by illegal means and after wrongfully confining the child in a Farm House situated at Mutthagi Village, Bijapura District, demanded a ransom amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- from PW11-S.N.Manjunath, the father of the child and they further threatened PW11 that, in the event of failure to pay the ransom amount of ₹ 30,00,000/-, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian Penal Code? 2. To what order? 8. After appreciating the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the Sessions Court came to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 was held in negative and accused persons were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. 10. We have heard Sri. Sampangiramaiah, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State and Sri. Gururajkulakarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that, the Sessions Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, none of the grounds urged by the Additional Government Advocate are not tenable because at the first instance, the evidence of PW12 has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court because PW12 is a intelligent boy who was aged about 8 years studying in Convent. According to the prosecution, minor boy was taken from Bangalore by the accused persons to different places in Karnataka, in a public carriage vehicle namely road transport corporation vehicle. When the accused persons were not known to PW12, when the boy is taken by unknown persons to different places from time to time, no child would kept quite without crying for help and it is not possible for the persons to kidnap an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only question to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the prosecution has proved that PW12 was kidnapped by the accused persons for ransom beyond reasonable doubt on 07.11.2003 at 6.30 p.m from Nandini Layout?. 15. It is not in dispute that, PW12 was aged about 8 years and is able to recognize his kith and kin, and that he was studying in Convent. It is the case of the prosecution that, the boy was taken for ransom by the respondents kidnapping him from the front side of the house of PW11, at about 6.30 p.m. from Nandini Layout. When accused persons were not known to PW12, at the first instance, the child will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused persons from the Farm House of Mutthagi village, Bijapur District, the witnesses, relied upon by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution. When the trial Court has considered the entire evidence led by the prosecution after properly appreciating the evidence and when the trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is difficult for the Appellate Court to reverse the findings against the judgment of the acquittal. We do not see any valid reasons to reverse the findings of the Sessions Court. Accordingly, we answer the point formulated by us against the State. 18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
