State vs C.N. Ramesh

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent (hereinafter referred to as accused) was tried for offences punishable under Sections 366, 342, 343, 323 IPC (wrongly mentioned as 320 IPC in the Charge) and also for an offence punishable u/s 220 IPC. The gist of charges framed against the respondent (accused) is stated thus:

During the year 2002-03, the accused was working as Sub-inspector (Law & Order) of Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore. About One and half months prior to 04.08.2003, the accused had secured P.W. 2-Smt. Roopa to Chickpet Police Station on the allegation that she had committed theft and collected a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, a gold chain and mobile phone from P.W. 2. On 26.07.2003, the accused kidnapped P.W. 2 from Room No. 17 of Central Lodge, No. 187, A.S. Achar Street, BVK Iyengar Road, Bangalore with an intention to compel P.W. 2 to marry him against her will, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 366 IPC.

The accused having kidnapped P.W. 2 in a car bearing No. CTT-4266 had wrongfully confined P.W. 2 in House No. 200, 1st Main Road, Mariyappa Badavane, Kottigepalya, Bangalore with an intention to have illicit intercourse with P.W. 2, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 342 and 343 IPC.

On 26.07.2003, when P.W. 1-Goutam Sadu Khan (husband of P.W. 2) had gone to Police Station to lodge a complaint against the accused, before the Police Commissioner the accused slapped him and committed an offence punishable u/s 323 IPC.

On 02.08.2003, the accused had called P.W. 1 and 22 to the police station at 11.30 a.m., and confined P.W. 1 and 22 knowing full well that he was acting contrary to law, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 220 IPC.

The learned trial judge on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution has acquitted the accused.

I have heard learned State Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for appellant (accused) is absent.

The proof of charges 1 to 3 as aforestated rests upon the evidence of victim namely Roopa. She has been examined as P.W. 2. Her evidence has vital bearing on proof of these charges.

P.W. 2-Roopa has deposed; that she had married P.W. 1 in a temple at Calcutta. When she was examined before the court on 01.02.2005, there was no relationship of husband and wife between P.W. 2 and P.W. 1. P.W. 2 has deposed; that P.W. 1 had brought her from Calcutta to Bangalore on the assurance that he would get a good job to her. After P.W. 1 and 2 reached Bangalore, P.W. 1 forced P.W. 2 to sing in a Live Band concert in Greenway Hotel, Bangalore. They were staying in Central Lodge. The Room Boy of the Lodge namely Rahul had lodged a complaint against P.W. 2 in Chickpet Police Station alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and gold chain to P.W. 2. In that connection, accused had called P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to Chickpet Police Station to enquire her. The accused had also called said Rahul. Thereafter, the said Rahul told the accused that he has not given either cash or gold chain to P.W. 2. The said Rahul stated that he had financial problems in his house, he handed over cash and gold chain to his mother. Therefore, P.W. 2 and her husband (PW. 1) were let off from the police station. The rest of evidence given by P.W. 2 relates to torture given to her by P.W. 1. This witness has been declared as hostile witness.

During cross-examination of P.W. 2, the learned Public Prosecutor has not elicited any incriminating evidence against the accused. The prosecution has not examined Room Boy-Rahul, who according to the case of prosecution was instrumental for the accused to secure P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to Chickpet Police Station. It appears P.W. 1 was instrumental in lodging a false complaint against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of victim does not support the case of prosecution that she had been kidnapped and wrongfully confined by the accused.

P.W. 1-Goutam Sadu Khan has deposed; that P.W. 2 had married him. They were residing in Central Lodge. P.W. 1 was working as an Artist in the Live Band of Green Way and Melody Hotel P.W. 2 was also working as Singer in the aforestated Hotel. The accused had secured PW''s. 1 and 2 to Chickpet Police Station on a complaint lodged by one Rahul wherein, it is alleged that P.W. 2 had taken the gold chain and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from Rahul (Room Boy). The accused had wrongfully confined PW''s. 1 and 2 in the police station and forced them to return a gold chain and a sum of Rs. 15,000/-.

At this juncture, it is necessary to state that P.W. 2 has not deposed that accused had extorted money and gold chain from her. It appears, P.W. 1 has given an exaggerated version. P.W. 1 has deposed that P.W. 2 was not found in Central Lodge. When he enquired the Manager of Hotel namely Arif, he told P.W. 1 that P.W. 2 had left the lodge with her luggage and she had gone to Sushindra Lodge to meet Siddartha and Purnam.

The prosecution has examined Arif as P.W. 10. P.W. 10 has deposed; that P.W. 2 left the lodge with her luggage. When enquired by P.W. 10, P.W. 2 told P.W. 10 that she was going to Sushindra Lodge to give clothes to her friend. The evidence of P.W. 10 has not been controverted.

Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1 is hardly sufficient to prove that accused had kidnapped P.W. 2 from Room No. 17 of Central Lodge.

PW. 1 has deposed; that he had met the Assistant Commissioner of Police to lodge a complaint against the accused. The accused after seeing P.W. 1 near the office of Commissioner slapped him.

From the cross-examination of P.W. 1, we find that he was misusing P.W. 2 whom he had brought from Calcutta.

PW. 1 has admitted that he was receiving substantial money from one Mohan (examined as P.W. 22) who was regularly visiting the Live Band where PW''s. 1 and 2 were working. It appears, P.W. 1 was misusing P.W. 2 to earn money by illegal means. Therefore, much credibility cannot be attached to his evidence.

The evidence of P.W. 1 that he was wrongfully confined in the police station does not find corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 1 that accused had slapped him does not find corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses though the incident is alleged to have taken place near the office of Police Commissioner within the public vision. It appears, P.W. 2 had approached the accused alleging ill-treatment at the hands of P.W. 1. The accused had summoned P.W. 1 to question about his illegal activities. P.W. 1 had grudge against the accused. Therefore, he had lodged a false complaint against the accused.

P.W. 3-Ganga Thimmaiah was working as the Assistant Sub-inspector of Police in Chickpet Police Station. P.W. 3 has deposed; that accused had detained P.W. 1 however, the detention of P.W. 1 in the Lockup was not entered in the Lockup register. P.W. 3 has categorically admitted that he had not entered in the Station House Diary that accused had kept P.W. 3 in the Lockup. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused had put him in the Lock-up of Chickpet Police Station.

The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W. 4-Dr. Satyanarayana. P.W. 4 has deposed; that on 02.08.2003 at about 7.45 p.m., he had examined one Mohan (PW. 22) and found following injuries:

i) Contusion on the nape of neck

ii) Contusion over right side of the neck

iii) Abrasion on the lift joint posterior aspect.

He has given the history of injuries as assault by one Ramesh however, he has not stated that said Ramesh was the Sub-inspector of Chickpet Police Station.

During cross-examination, P.W. 4 has admitted that injured himself informed P.W. 4 that he was assaulted by one Ramesh.

At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.W. 22-Mohan. P.W. 22-Mohan has deposed; that he is a native of Malavalli and he knew PW''s. 1 and 2. P.W. 22 was visiting the Live Band in Green Way Bar & Restaurant. He used to come all the way from Malavalli to Bangalore to visit the Live Band. On 26.07.2003, P.W. 1 informed P.W. 22 that whereabouts of his wife (PW. 2) are not known and she is missing.

At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the evidence of P.W. 1 that accused had kidnapped and wrongfully confined his wife (PW. 2). The evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 22 is contradictory.

PW. 22 has deposed; that they suspected foul play in the missing of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 had met the accused but response from the accused was not proper, therefore, P.W. 1 and P.W. 22 had gone to the office of Police Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Police informed the accused to receive the complaint. The accused brought P.W. 22 to Chickpet Police Station and assaulted him and the accused relieved him of gold ornaments and cash viz., 2 Gold Chains and 1 Bracelet and a sum of Rs. 25,000/-.

At this juncture, it is necessary to state that accused was not charged for committing extortion or robbery of gold ornaments or cash from the possession of P.W. 22. P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused had wrongfully detained P.W. 1 and P.W. 22. P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused had assaulted P.W. 22.

PW. 5-Kalalingaiah has deposed'' that accused had brought a person to Chickpet Police Station at 11.30 a.m., on 02.08.2004 and relieved him of Rs. 25,000/-, gold chain and mobile phone. The accused put that person in lock up and left the police station. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 22 has deposed that either of them had been detained by accused in Chickpet Police Station on 02.08.2004.

The evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 does not support the case of prosecution. The prosecution has examined several witnesses to prove that accused had wrongfully confined P.W. 2. In view of evidence of P.W. 2, the evidence of other witnesses is of no avail to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has adduced evidence without there being any charge against the accused. This witness has been treated as a hostile witness for resiling from a part of his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. There is no medical evidence to show that P.W. 22 had suffered injuries at the hands of accused. Thus, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove charges No. 1 to 3.

The prosecution has not produced medical evidence to prove that P.W. 1 had suffered injuries at the hands of accused. Therefore, charges leveled against the accused that he had assaulted P.W. 1 and he being the Sub-inspector of Police had wrongfully confined PW''s. 1 and 22 cannot be accepted. The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.