TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in S.C.No.678/2005. 2. Based on the charge-sheet filed by the Nandini Layout Police Station, accused persons 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 Rs. 30,00,000/- from PW11-S.N.Manjunath, the father of the child and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atened of causing death of CW2 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 364-A r/w Section 34 of Indian 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PW12, in the circumstances, he requests the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and convict the accused for the aforesaid offence. 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 pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Bangalore Police visited the Farm House, they were accompanied by the jurisdictional Police of Bijapur District. In the circumstances, 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....