On 20.5.96 A and A2 had companye to his telephone booth at about 2.30 M. and had telephoned to one telephone number80347 at Hosadurga, which was later on companyrected by him to be the telephone number80537 on STD companye number08199, which is the STD companye of Hosadurga.
In the afternoon when the father, M.K. Krishnamurthy, PW 7 returned home for lunch and enquired about his son, as he had number companye to the shop, till evening family waited for return of the boy and thereafter the search began.
The accused persons left the place and went towards the bus stand.
A1 called out Wasim , S o SBM Cashier and the amount was later on paid by Wasim.
Thimmanna, PW 1, another Uncle of Madhu went to the house of Prakash, whose house is near the house of Krishnamurthy, PW 7.
This is further fortified by his lodging an FIR in the police station informing that the ransom demand has been made.
But the statement of PW 13, the other STD booth owner is companyroborated by the statement of PW 14 and further the statement of PW 2, the uncle who had received the call at Hosadurga whereby the ransom demand was made.
Thereafter the police party along with PW 2 went to Arasikere Railway Station and proceeded towards Beerur along the railway track.
On this, the P.S.I. Shri B.S. Rajashekhar, PW 16, deputed A.S.I. Shri M.G. Gangadharappa, PW 17.
Various telephone calls were made to the relatives and enquiries were made from other places where the boy was expected to have gone.
The ransom demand was made by the accused appellants from the STD booth of PW 13 over phone which was received by PW 1 and immediately thereafter companyplaint was made in the police station.
As he was busy with another customer, he asked his neighbour, a cycle shop owner, Krishnamurthy PW 14 to keep a watch over A 2 and at that time A 2 removed his shoes and threw them towards Krishnamurthy.
The sessions companyrt did number permit the same as a secondary evidence and the matter got rested at that.
This is companyroborated by the evidence of PW 1, Thimmanna, one of the uncles of the deceased that he received the telephone call on telephone number80537 on 20.5.96 at about 3.00 P.M. This is supported by the evidence of another uncle PW 2 MK Prakash who said that his brother Thimmanna received a call and told him that somebody from Arasikere had telephoned informing that they had kidnapped the boy and are demanding an amount of Rs.50,000/ to release the boy.
It has also companye in evidence that Xerox companyies of the book maintained by PW 13 was taken by the investigating officer and tried to be produced as an evidence.
It is urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution the FIR was lodged on 20.5.1996 at 1.00 P.M. by PW 2.
The companyrse adopted by the companyplainants and the police party by travelling in a vehicle was in companyformity with the decision taken by the police party and the companyplainant, was in natural companyrse of companyduct.
He insisted for payment.
When he asked them why they are number paying the amount, A 2 threw a shoe towards him which landed on his right leg and he retaliated by giving one slap to A 2.
To prove this fact the prosecution has examined three witnesses PW 12 Renuka, PW 13 Kumar and PW 14 Krishnamurthy.
The post mortem was companyducted by PW 3 Dr. Ravikar on 21st May who found the following injuries on the body There was haemorrhage in the sub tutaneous tissue and in the muscles of the neck in the region of hyoid and thyroid cartilage There was haemorrhage in the retro pharyngael tissue at the base of the tongue There was sub mucus haemorrhage in the larynx and Sheath and intima of the carotid artery are lacerated with effusion of blood in the walls.
Much reliance cannot be placed on the statement of PW 12 Renuka because of the timing at which he has stated the boys have companytacted Hosadurga on phone from his telephone booth because there is numbercorresponding companyroboration to his statement of such calls having been made at 9.00 A.M. or 10.00 A.M. from his telephone booth.
PW 4 Ramakrishanappa and PW 5 B.V. Anjan Kumar who are the panch witnesses have deposed that M.Os 1 3 were found on the dead body.
They reached Arsikere at about 5.00 PM.
M.Os 1 3 were on the dead body of Madhu and in this regard the spot mazhar as per Exh.
PW 7, the father of the deceased has stated in his evidence that he identified the dead body on the basis of the physical description and also on the basis of the clothes worn by the deceased.
In appeal, the acquittal of the accused was set aside by the High Court and they were, as aforementioned, companyvicted.
There was some companymotion on account of number payment of the telephone bill by A1 and A2 and, therefore, he went near the telephone booth and heard A 1 and A 2 saying that they had telephoned to Hosadurga but they do number have money to pay.
Thereafter enquiries were made at the T.D. Booths at Arsikere for finding out from where the call was made and to trace the person who made the call to Hosadurga.
He heard one male voice saying that he knew that they are in search of Madhu and that Madhu is in their custody, he will be released if the ransom amount of Rs.50,000/ is paid.
Thereafter, A1 approached SBM Cashier and the cashiers son came and gave the phone bill amount to PW 13.
When the boys reached near them, it was numbericed by PW 2 that one of them Venkatesh, A 1, is his relative.
The police party along with accused and others proceeded towards Vedavathi river bank wherefrom dead body of Madhu was exhumed from the sand at the bank of the Vedavathi river from the spot pointed out by the accused persons.
The book in which the entry has been made is number with him since he had disposed it off along with some newspapers.
Two STD booth owners informed that the calls were made from their booth to Hosadurga by two boys and one of the S.T.D. Booth owners informed the police party that the telephone to Hosadurga was made by two boys from his telephone booth at about 2.30 O clock.
After the call was made he had asked for the bill amount and the accused informed him that they do number possess money and thus unable to pay.
PW 2, Prakash along with his brother Srinivas and the police officials proceeded in a Taxi to Arsikere in search of the boy.
At about 2.30 PM or 2.45 PM, a telephone call was received on Telephone No.8537 at the house of PW 2 M.K. Prakash which was picked up by PW 1 Thimanna.
He has charged the bill of Rs.36.13 p. and the entry to that effect was made in his book.
The prosecution has been able to establish that a companyplaint was lodged with the police of Madhu missing from the house, after frantic search was made by the family members to find out his whereabouts.
PWs 12 and 13 are the STD booth owners.
and one P.C. Constable Rudriah to make a search of the missing boy.
When they proceeded about two and a half to three kilometers, they saw two boys companying in their direction along the railway track at about 6.30 or 6.40 PM.
It was vacation time for the Schools.
On seeing the police party along with other persons those two boys started running away.
However, they were chased and caught.
The doctor opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling.
PW 13 has deposed that he was running an STD telephone booth at B.H. Road, Arasikere.
None of these witnesses have been cross examined on the question of clothes found and removed from the dead body.
The statement of this witness is companyroborated by PW 14 who held a nearby cycle shop and who has said in his deposition before the companyrt that both A1 and A2 on 20.5.96 came to the telephone booth approximately at 2.30 P.M. and he was in his cycle shop.
Again in the next morning search was made for Madhu but he was number traced and as such at about 1.00 P.M. on 20th May 1996, PW 2, M.K. Prakash, uncle of Madhu lodged the first missing companyplaint in Hosadurga Police Station.
P2 was drawn up.
Those accused persons, according to PW 2, volunteered that they had kidnapped Madhu and that they would show the place from where the dead body can be recovered.
From there they were brought to police station when it was about 10.00 P.M. Both the accused persons were put up in the police lock up.
It was said that the ransom amount of Rs.50,000/ is to be thrown in a bundle on the tracks of the railways running between Arasikere and Beerur before 5.00 P.M. After receipt of this telephonic call, PW 1 immediately rushed to the Police Station and lodged a companyplaint at about 3.00 PM.
PW 14 gave two slaps to A 2.
The accused persons faced trial and were acquitted by the Sessions Court.
Thereafter, A 1 went to fetch the amount and he made A 2 to sit in his booth.
The statement of these witnesses establishes that about 2.30 P.M. A 1 and A 2 came to the STD booth of PW 13 and thereafter an STD call was made to Hosadurga.
In brief, the prosecution case is that on 19th of May 1996 at about 9.00 AM, a minor boy named Madhu left his house for going to his fathers shop.
The police registered the companyplaint as Crime No.99/96 on the same day.
P. NAOLEKAR, J. This appeal is preferred by the accused A.N. Venkatesh A 1 and Ezaz A 2 challenging their companyvictions under Section 363 IPC RI for 1 year , Section 384 IPC RI for 2 Years , Section 201 IPC RI for 6 months and Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment awarded by the High Court, reversing the order of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Court.
On 20.5.96 the police officer of Hosadurga had brought both A1 and A2 and shown them to him and he identified them as the same persons who had made the call from the STD booth.
During the night intervening 20th/21st May 1996 they were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded which are Exhibits P 15 and P16 in which they volunteered to take the police and others to the place where they have buried the dead body of Madhu.
