L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. - (1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 05.10.2009, in S.C.No.38 of 2008 on the file of Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act - cum - VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.
(2.) ACCUSED Nos.1 to 10 were tried in that case for the offences punishable under Sections 364 -A, 342, 387 r/w Section 511, 395, 506 Part II r/w Section 120 -B and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos.4,5,6,9 and 10 of all the charges framed against them and convicted accused Nos.1,3,7 and 8 for the offence punishable under Section 364 -A IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/ - each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. Accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 -A IPC r/w Section 120 -B IPC and similar punishment was imposed. However, accused Nos.1,3,7 and 8 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 342,387 r/w Section 511, 395, 506 Part -II r/w Section 120 -B IPC and accused No.2 was found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 387 r/w Section 511, 395, 506 Part -II IPC and Section 27 of Indian Arms Act and, accordingly, they were acquitted. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, Smt. V. Kiranmayee, submitted a complaint on 10.30 a.m. on 24.07.2007 in the Police Station, Gopalapuram, alleging that her husband (P.W.2) was missing, after he left the house in a car bearing No.AP 10AZ 1041 driven by their driver, by name, Mohan, (accused No.2), for dropping their children at Geethanjali School, near Sangeet Theatre, Secunderabad. On the basis of that complaint, crime No.245 of 2007 was registered. When the investigation was in progress, P.W.2 is said to have returned at 8.30 a.m. on the next day. He was examined and, on the basis of the information furnished by him, further investigation was taken up. P.W.2 stated before the police that after he dropped his children and came out of the school, an unknown person, aged about 30 years, wearing a red shirt, pushed him into a white coloured Indica car by pointing a weapon and four persons, who were already in the car, had dragged him inside the car and that he was taken towards Mettuguda. He has also stated that one among them had tied a cloth on his eyes and he was threatened to remain quiet. Demand is said to have been made for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, stated to be for conducting a meeting of an extremist organization, and that he was required to inform the same to his wife (P.W.1) immediately. After travelling for about three hours, the cloth tied on his eyes is said to have been removed, and he noticed about 20 to 30 persons inside a room. The abductors are said to have called each other as Venkanna, Ramulu and Prabhakar and they made continuous demands for payment of money. On finding that he has no money or there is no possibility of payment of the ransom, all the abductors are said to have taken him about four kilometers inside the forest, and there also, they have threatened him. He further stated that on seeing the news that were being flashed in a T.V., the abductors have dropped him at a nearby railway station, and after boarding a train, he reached Secunderabad. The police is said to have apprehended accused No.2 at the railway station, Secunderabad, and recovered a mobile from him, and on the basis of the confession made by him, the other accused are said to have been apprehended.
(3.) THE trial Court convicted the appellants herein, while acquitting the other accused in the case. Sri A. Prabhakar Rao and Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submit that the conviction of the appellants was based upon the statement of P.W.2, and that there are any number of contradictions in it. They further submit that there was absolutely no basis for convicting the appellants and imposing such a serious punishment upon them.;