Madras High Court
Gunasekaran vs The Inspector Of Police on 2 April, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.04.2026
Pronounced on : 10.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl. A. (MD)Nos.97, 144 and 222 of 2023
Crl.A(MD) No.97/2023
Gunasekaran .. Appellant/accused No.6
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
B3 Teppakulam Police Station,
Madurai District
Crime No.1134/2017 ..Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 in S.C.No.267 of 2019 on
the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
Senior counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Crl.A(MD) No.144/2023
1.Kannan @ Pitchaikannu
2.Maniraj
3.Manikandan
4.Vairamuthu
5.Jeeva @ Jeevajothi
6.Chinnadurai @ Highcourt Durai .. Appellants/
accused Nos.2,3,4,5,9,10
Vs.
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Teppakulam Police Station, (L&O)
Madurai District
Crime No.1134/2017 ..Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 in S.C.No.267 of 2019 and
SC No.107/2022 for A3 and A10 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Madurai.
Crl.A(MD) No.222/2023
1.Ravindran
2.Kaladevi .. Appellant/accused Nos.1&8
Vs.
2/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
The State through
The Inspector of Police,
Samayapuram Police Station,
Tiruchirappalli District
Crime No.665/2015 ..Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2022 in S.C.No.267 of 2019 on
the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.Jegadeeshpandian for A1,A3&A8
Mr.A.K.Azhagarsami for A2
Mr.T.Kishore Karthik for A4
Mr.S.Nithish for A5
Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian for A9 and A10
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
These appeals have been filed by the accused persons aggrieved by
the conviction and sentence in the following manner:
Rank of the accused Appeal No.
A6 97/2023
A2,A3,A4,A5,A9 and A10 144/2023
A1 and A8 222/2023
against the judgment passed in SC NO.267/2019 dated 21.12.2022 on the
3/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai convicting and
sentencing the appellants in the following manner:
Rank of the Offences for which Sentenced to undergo
accused convicted (IPC)
A6 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
A2 120(B) r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
342 One year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
A1 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
419 Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months
341 Rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one week
342 Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
A3 and 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
A10 default, to one year simple imprisonment
364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
419 Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for six months
341 Rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one week4/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023Rank of the Offences for which Sentenced to undergo
accused convicted (IPC)
A3 and 342 Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.
A10 1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
A4 and A5 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
A9 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
368 r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
A8 120B r/w 364A Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to one year simple imprisonment
The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 was residing in a joint
family in Madurai. They were having a Mill in which the father of A1 was
working as an Accountant for several years. After his demise, solatium was
given to the family of the deceased. It is alleged that A1 and his family was
not satisfied with the amount given as solatium and hence, A1 is said to
have conspired with other accused persons for kidnapping the children of
PW1 for ransom.
5/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
2.1. On 16.11.2017 at about 8.10 a.m., PW3, who was the driver
working under PW1, took the children of PW1 in an Innova Car bearing
registration No.TN64 P6666 from the house to drop them at VMJ School
situated at New Ramnad Road, Madurai. A1 and A10 dressed as Traffic
Police came along with A3 and stopped the Innova car on the pretext of
conducting search. A3, at this point of time, is said to have taken custody of
the car and he compelled PW3 to go to the back seat of the car.
2.2. A1 and A10 got into the car and is said to have kidnapped the two
girl children. A2 is said to have followed in his motorbike the Innova Car in
which the two girl children were kidnapped. PW3 was administered with
Haloperidol-IP medicine by A1 and he became unconscious.
2.3. A4 and A5 were waiting in a TATA Indica Car bearing
registration No.TN-07-AQ-0495 near a vacant land and the two girl children
were shifted to the said car and they were taken to the house of A9. A9 took
the children into her custody in her house.
2.4. A3 drove the Innova Car along with A10 and PW3 and PW3 was
dropped at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and the Innova Car has
also parked in the hospital.
6/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
2.5. A2 thereafter called PW5, who is the co-brother of PW1 and he
was informed about the kidnapping of the two children and ransom of
Rs.Two crores was demanded. The family of PW1 and PW5 in order to
save the children consented to give Rs.50 lakhs. This was informed to A2 in
a conversation that took place over mobile phone by PW5 and A2 instructed
the amount to be kept near the electric post at Madurai Tamil Sangam
Building.
2.6. PW1 and PW5 left with no other option managed to arrange for
the funds and kept the amount in the chosen place as directed by A2. This
amount was collected by A5 and it was handed over to A7 to ensure safe
custody to A1. This amount was lying in the house of A7, who is alleged to
be aware of the fact that the amount was towards kidnapping the children of
PW1.
2.7. After the ransom amount was paid, A1 and A3 arranged an auto-
rickshaw owned by PW19 and the two kidnapped children were taken from
the house of A9 and they were dropped near Chandramathi Mahal, behind
the house of PW1.
7/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
2.8. In the meantime, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) on 16.11.2017
at about 21 hrs., before PW26, who registered an FIR (Ex.P40) in Crime
No.1134 of 2017 for offence under Section 364A IPC.
2.9. PW27 took up the investigation and he arrested A1 to A4 on
19.11.2017 and based on their confession statement, recovered the injection
with syringe, Indica Car, Haloperidol medicine and cash of Rs.16,23,500/-
was recovered from A1. Insofar as A2 is concerned, cash of Rs.10,20,000/-
was recovered. Insofar as A3 and A4 are concerned, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs
was recovered from each of the accused person. The two wheeler was
recovered from A2.
3. On the next day, ie., on 20.11.2017, PW27 arrested A6 and A8 and
recovered the police uniform dresses and other materials from A6 along
with cash of Rs.2 lakhs. A mobile phone was recovered from A8. PW27
arrested A7 and recovered cash of Rs.10 lakhs including the missing mobile
phone. A5 was arrested on 20.11.2017 and A10 was arrested on 31.12.2017
8/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
and two two-wheelers were recovered from A10.
4. PW27 took steps for conducting the test identification parade for
PW1, PW5 and PW19 to identify the accused persons. Accordingly, a
requisition was made to the Judicial Magistrate, based on which, a test
identification parade was conducted for identifying A1 to A5 and A9.
5. The statements of PW1, PW5 and PW19 were recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. The conversation between A2 and PW5 was sent to the
Forensic Sciences Department to compare with the sample voice of the
accused No.2 and PW5.
6. After recording all the statements of the witnesses under Section
161 Cr.P.C., and after collecting all the materials, the final report came to be
laid before the Judicial Magistrate, No.I Madurai, as against 10 accused
persons, which was taken on file in PRC No.4/2018. A3 and A10
absconded and they were not able to be secured in spite of the issuance of
9/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
non bailable warrant. Hence, the case was split up for A3 and A10 and it
was numbered as PRC No.177/2019. The original case was committed to
the Principal District Court, Madurai and it was numbered as SC No.
267/2019. The case was made over to the Sessions Court, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Madurai.
7. The split up case was also committed after the appearance of A3
and A10 and it was taken on file in SC No.107/2022.
8. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons in the
following manner:
S.No. Rank of the accused Offences under Sections (IPC)
1 A1,A2,A3 to A10 120(B) read with 364A
2 A1, A3, A10 419
3 A1, A3, A10 341
4 A1, A2, A10 342
5 A1,A2, A3, A4,A5, A7 364A
and A10
6 A9 368 r/w 364A
9. When the accused persons were questioned on the charges framed
against them, they denied the same as false.
10/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW27 and marked Exs.P1 to
Ex.P48. They also placed reliance upon MO1 to MO28. The aggravating
circumstances and evidence were put to the accused persons when they were
questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., and they denied the same as
false.
11. DW1 was examined on the side of the defence and Ex.D1 was
marked. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a
conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts against all the accused persons and accordingly they were convicted
and sentenced in the manner stated supra.
12. A7 had also filed an appeal in Crl.A.(MD) NO.112/2023, but,
however, he died during the pendency of the appeal and hence, that appeal
was closed as abated on 24.03.2026. The remaining accused persons
aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court are prosecuting the
present appeals before this Court.
11/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
13. For ease of understanding, the case of the prosecution can be
simplified as follows:
On 15.11.2017, A1, A6 and A8 purchased traffic police constable
uniform and other materials from the shop of PW16. On 16.11.2017 at
about 8.10 a.m. A1 and A10 wearing police uniform and A3 in normal attire
stopped the Innova car, which was driven by PW3 in the pretext of
searching the car. They, thereafter, kidnapped the children along with PW3
and the car was followed in a two wheeler by A2. A1 is said to have
injected Haloperidol – IP to PW3 and as a result, PW3 became unconscious.
In the course of the same transaction, A4 and A5 came in a TATA Indica car
and the girl children were transferred to this car and they were taken along
with A1 to the house of A9. In the meantime, A3 and A10 took PW3 to
Meenakshi Mission Hospital and parked the car there along with PW3 and
went away from that place.
12/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 202313.1. A9 helped in confining the two kidnapped girls in her house.
A2 had conversation with PW5 and was demanding for cash as a condition
precedent to release the children. It was agreed to give Rs.50 lakhs.
Pursuant to the same, A5 took the cash from the specified place and handed
it over to A7, who kept it in his house. On receipt of money, A1, A3 andA5
engaged an auto belonging to PW19 and dropped the children at
Chandramathi Mahal behind the house of PW1.
14. In order to have a bird’s eye view on the specific role that was
attributed against each accused person by the prosecution and the witnesses
and the materials that were relied upon to prove the charge as against each
accused person, the same is tabulated hereunder:
13/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023Sl. Accused Role Attributed by the Evidence Adduced
No. Prosecution
1 Ravindran / A1
● Alleged conspiracy witnesses PW8 to PW11
turned hostile● Oral evidence of PW3 & PW4 speak about the
alleged kidnapping● PW16 speaks about the alleged purchase of the
Police Dress and also the downloading of CCTV
footages from the shop in CD (MO24)● PW.19 – Auto Driver speaks about dropping the
victims near their residence accompanied by A3.
Happens to be the ● PW.21 speaks about the side-effects of
mastermind behind the Haloperidol and Ex. P32 is the Report.
entire occurrence;
batched conspiracy with ● PW.12, PW.13 and PW.14 speaks about the
other Accused; had purchase of Bolero Vehicle from the ill-gotten
procured the Police money (MO.1).
Dress; indulged in act of
kidnapping the victims; ● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest and Recovery of
had administered Mos.
Haloperidol-IP; causing
sedation to the ● PW.22 speaks about the issuance of certificate/Ex.
Driver/PW3; shifter PW3 P33 regards MO.24
in the Innova Car along
with A3 and A10 & ● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade
dropped at Meenakshi conducted regards
Mission Hospital, A1/ Ravindran; A2/Kannan
dropping of the victims @ Pitchaikannu; A3/Maniraj; A4/ Manikandan;
near their residence; A5/ Vairamuthu; and A9/Jeeva @ Jeevajothi
shared the booty.
● PW.3, PW.4 and PW.19 had participated in the TI
Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade Proceedings
14/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Sl. Accused Role Attributed by the Evidence Adduced
No. Prosecution
2 Kannan @ ● Alleged Conspiracy Witnesses PW.8 to PW.11
Pitchaikannu / turned hostile.
A2 ● PW.5 speaks about the demand of ransom and
negotiation.
● PW.22/Sundaravadivel, Technical
Inspector speaks about downloading of the
alleged conversation between
A2 and PW.5 from the mobile phone of PW.5 and
recording the same in DVD/MO.28
● PW.22 had issued Certificate / Ex.P34.
Alleged to have hatched
● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade
the conspiracy with the
conducted regards A1/Ravindran; A2/Kannan @
other accused; followed
Pitchaikannu; A3/Maniraj; A4/
the other accused and
Manikandan; A5/Vairamuthu; and A9/Jeeva @
victims in two-wheeler
Jeevajothi
after kidnap; demanded
ransom for the release ● PW.3, PW.4 and PW.19 had
of victims with PW5 participated in the TI Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade
Proceedings
● PW.25 speaks about the voice comparison
conducted pursuant to the requisition by the IO
before Judicial Magistrate for collection of sample
voice of A2 vide. Ex.P43 and the subsequent
comparison of the Audio Recordings in MO.28.
Ex. P39 is the Report submitted by her.
● PW.29/IO deposes of the fact that A2’s Mobile
No. 7502604531 and the same was in repeated
contact with PW.5’s Mobile 9843777788
on 16.11.2017 and Ex.P44 & Ex.P45 – CDR Details
3 Maniraj/A3 ● Alleged Conspiracy Witnesses PW.8 to PW.11
turned hostile.
● Oral evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 speak about the
alleged kidnapping.
Alleged to have hatched
● PW.19 – Auto Driver speaks about dropping the
the conspiracy with the
victims near their residence accompanied by A3.
other accused;
● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest and Recovery of
Accompanied A1 in the
act of kidnapping the Mos.
victims ; administering ● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade
sedation to the conducted regards
Driver/PW3; dropping of A1/ Ravindran; A2/Kannan
the victims near the @ Pitchaikannu;
residence; shared the A3/Maniraj; A4/
booty. Manikandan; A5/Vairamuthu; and A9/Jeeva @
Jeevajothi PW.3,
PW.4, PW.19 had
participated in the TI Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade
Proceedings
15/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Sl. Accused Role Attributed by the Evidence Adduced
No. Prosecution
4 Manikandan/ ● Alleged Conspiracy
A4 Witnesses PW.8
Alleged to have hatched to PW.11 turned hostile.
the conspiracy with the ● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest and Recovery of
other accused; (Reached Mos.
the ground along with ● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade
A5 in the Indica Car and conducted regards
thereafter had taken A1/ Ravindran; A2/Kannan
away the victims along @ Pitchaikannu; A3/Maniraj;
with A1 and dropped A4/ Manikandan; A5/Vairamuthu; and A9/Jeeva
them at the house of @ Jeevajothi
A9); shared the booty. ● PW3, PW4 and PW.19
had participated in the TI Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade
Proceedings
5 Vairamuthu/ ● Alleged Conspiracy Witnesses PW.8 to PW.11
A5 turned hostile.
Alleged to have hatched ● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest
the conspiracy with the ● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade
other accused; (Took the conducted regards A1/Ravindran; A2/Kannan @
amount dropped by Pitchaikannu; A3/Maniraj; A4/
PW5 at Tamil Sangam Manikandan; A5/Vairamuthu; and A9/Jeeva @
and handed over to Jeevajothi
A7/Radhakrishnan. ● PW.3, PW.4 and PW.19 had
participated in the TI Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade
Proceedings
6 Gunasekaran/ Alleged to have hatched ● Alleged Conspiracy Witnesses PW.8 to PW.11
A6 the conspiracy with the turned hostile.
other accused; shared ● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest and recovery of
the booty. Mos.
7 Kaladevi / A8 ● Alleged conspiracy witnesses PW8 to PW11
(Wife of A1) turned hostile
● PW16 speaks about the alleged purchase of the
Police Dress and also the downloading of CCTV
footages from the shop in CD (MO24)
Alleged to have hatched
● PW.15 speaks about the Arrest
the conspiracy with the
other accused;
Accompanied A1 to the
shop of PW16 for
purchase of police dress;
16/67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023 Sl. Accused Role Attributed by the Evidence Adduced No. Prosecution 8 Jeeva @ ● Alleged conspiracy witnesses PW8 to PW11 Jeevajothi / turned hostile A9 ● PW4 speaks about her presence in the place where they were confined. ● PW9 speaks about A9 residing at Mathichiyam ● PW17 speaks about A9 residing at Mathichiyam Alleged to have hatched wherein she heard the noise of the children who the conspiracy with the were detained but had turned hostile. other accused; the ● PW.15 speaks about the arrest and recovery of children/victims were MOs. kept in her residence; ● PW.24 Judicial Magistrate speaks about TI Parade conducted regards the accused namely, A1/ Ravindran; A2/Kannan @ Pitchaikannu;
A3/Maniraj; A4/ Manikandan; A5/ Vairamuthu;
and A9/Jeeva @ Jeevajothi
● PW.3, PW.4 and PW.19 had participated in the TI
Parade Ex.P37 TI Parade Proceedings
9 Chinnadurai/ Had hatched conspiracy ● Alleged conspiracy witnesses PW8 to PW11
A10 with the other accused; turned hostile
had procured the police ● Oral evidence of PW3 and PW4 speak about the
dress; indulged in act of alleged kidnapping;
kidnapping the victims; ● PW16 speaks about the alleged purchase of the
shifted PW3 in the police dress
Innova Car along with ● PW.15 speaks about the arrest and recovery of
A1 and A3 and dropped MOs.
at Meenakshi Mission
Hospital
15. For the sake of ease, the arrest and recovery from each accused
person is tabulated hereunder:
Sl.N Rank of accused Date of Arrest Recovered object
o.
1 A1-Ravindran 19.11.2017 at about 22.00 hours at MO1-Bolero Car bearing Regn
Iravathanallur, Check Post, Madurai No.TN64K4133 (photo)
MO11-Anesthesia 4 bottles
MO12-Indica Car bearing Regn.
No.TN07AQ0495 (photo)
MO13-Haloperidol 5 bottles
MO14-cash Rs.16,23,500/-
17/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Sl.N Rank of accused Date of Arrest Recovered object
o.
2. A2-Kannan 19.11.2017 at about 22.00 hours at MO15-Cash Rs.10,20,000/-
Iravathanallur, Check Post, Madurai MO16-Samsung Mobile Phone
MO19-Two Wheeler TVS Access
Regn. No,TN59AT7806
3 A3-Maniraj 19.11.2017 at about 22.00 hours at MO17-Cash Rs.2,00,000/-
Iravathanallur, Check Post, Madurai
4 A4-Manikandan 19.11.2017 at about 22.00 hours at MO18-Cash Rs.2,00,000/-
Iravathanallur, Check Post, Madurai
5 A5-Vairamuthu 20.11.2017 at about 10.00 at Annai -Nil-
Chandramathi Marriage Hall
6. A6-Gunasekaran 20.11.2017 at about 4.00 am., Vel MO2-Half Hand White Shirt – 2
Foundation, Madurai. MO3-Red Colour Whistle
Chord-2
MO4-Star 4 Nos
MO5-Red and Blue Colour
Ribbon-4 Nos.
MO6-TP Badge – 4 Nos.
MO7-Khaki Colour Pant – 2 Nos.
MO8-Traffic SI Cap – 2 Nos.
MO9-SI Belt-2 Nos.
MO10-Brown Colour Shoe – 2
Pair
MO20 – Cash Rs.2,00,000/-
7. A8-Kaladevi 20.11.2017 at about 5.15 am., MO21 ASVS Cell Phone
Vandiyur Sathasivan Nagar
8 A9-Jeevajothi 20.11.2017 at about 5.15 am., in – Nil –
front of her house, North Street,
Mathichiyam,Madurai.
9 A10-Chinnadurai 31.12.2017 at about 11.00 a.m. MO25-Black Colour Royal
Mattuthavani Bus Stand Enfield Bullet Regn.
No.TN59BH1836
MO26-Biscuit Colour Honda
Activa Regn. o.TN59BM9030
18/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
16. From the above chart, it is seen that out of Rs.50 lakhs allegedly
collected as ransom, the prosecution by means of recovery of money has
attempted to account for a total of Rs.42,43,500/- and insofar as the balance
amount is concerned, it is alleged that A1 purchased a Bolero Car (MO1).
17. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
18. The prosecution in order to prove the charges broadly relied upon
oral testimonies, documents and material objects on the one hand and
scientific evidence in terms of CCTV footages, audio recording and CDR
particulars on the other hand. Insofar as the former is concerned, the
prosecution is heavily relying upon the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW13,
PW14, PW15, PW16, PW18 and PW19. Insofar as the scientific evidence is
concerned, the prosecution is relying upon PW21, PW22, PW23 and PW25.
19. When a Court marshals the facts of the case and appreciates
evidence, it should not divest itself from the existing reality. In a case
19/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
involving kidnapping for ransom and more particularly when it involves
children, the Court, while undertaking the process of appreciation of
evidence, should not do it in a manner in which it is done for instance in a
case of murder. In the process of appreciation of evidence, the same
yardstick cannot be applied in every case and each case has to be dealt with
considering its nature and the circumstances surrounding the case. One size
fits all approach must be avoided in the process of appreciation of evidence.
20. In the process of appreciation of evidence, this Court has to
broadly analyse this case by undertaking two steps. The first step is as to
whether a kidnapping for ransom has taken place as alleged by the
prosecution and if so, the second step is to see whether the prosecution has
established the charge as against each of the accused person regarding their
involvement in the incident.
21. PW3 in this case is the driver of the car engaged by the family of
PW1 and PW5. It is the case of the prosecution that PW3 normally goes to
the house of PW1 to pickup PW4 and her sister to drop them in the school.
20/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
On 16.11.2017, PW3 picked up the two children in an Innova car bearing
registration number TN64 P6666. When this car was going near
Muktheeswarar Temple, it was intercepted and stopped by three persons.
Two persons were in traffic police uniform and the other person was in his
normal attire. PW3 in his evidence states that all those three persons entered
the car and PW3 was taken to the backseat and one of the person started
driving the car. The car was halted in an open space/vacant land.
22. The above evidence tendered by PW3 is also spoken to by PW4,
who is one of the kidnapped girl. Both of them also state about PW3 being
administered with injection and as a result he became immobile. Both these
witnesses also stated the fact that the two children were shifted to a Tata
Indica car bearing registration number TN-07-AQ-0495.
23. The further evidence of PW3 is that when he gained
consciousness, he realised that he was near Meenakshi Mission Hospital
inside the same Innova car.
21/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
24. PW3 identified A1, A3 and A10 in the dock and he also
specifically stated that it was A3, who drove the car after they took control
of the car and forcibly brought PW3 to the backseat of the car. He further
states that it was A1 and A10, who were wearing traffic police uniform and
A3 was in his regular attire. He further states that it was A1 who
administered the injection.
25. Insofar as the victim girl PW4 is concerned, she was able to
identify only A1 in the Court and she was not able to clearly remember and
identify the other two accused persons, who had stopped the car near
Muktheeswarar Temple.
26. The victim girl PW4 further states in her evidence that she along
with her younger sister were taken to the house of A9. The victim girl PW4
clearly identified A9 in the Court by describing her to be the ‘fat lady’ to
whose house PW4 and her sister were taken and confined.
22/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
27. The evidence of PW4 further brings out the fact that A1 also came
to the house of A9 and A9 attempted to serve curd rice to both the girls and
PW4’s younger sister started crying. She states that both of them were
threatened by showing a dog in the house of A9. Further A1 brought cake
and asked these two girls to eat the cake. They found that it was of bitter
taste and refused to eat, but, however, both of them were forced to eat the
cake and she states that thereafter both of them became unconscious.
28. At this juncture, the evidence of PW16 assumes some importance
to corroborate the purchase of traffic police uniform by A1 and his wife A8
on 15.11.2017 at 9 p.m., which is one day prior to the date of occurrence.
PW16 is an independent witness, who was an employee in the shop, who
speaks about the purchase of two sets of police uniform and A1 changing
from his regular attire and wearing the police uniform while he left the shop
along with A8. PW16, while deposing in the Court, has identified A1 and
A8.
23/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
29. The next important witness whose evidence has to be considered
by this Court is that of PW19. He has stated in his evidence that his services
were hired by A1 and he has spoken about two independent actions that
were performed by him. The first one was, when he picked up A5 and
dropped him near Tamil Sangam and five minutes thereafter, after A5
returned, he was again dropped near Reliance showroom at Anna Nagar.
The second part of it, is after half an hour A1 and A3 asked PW19 to go to
Mathichiyam, which is the house of A9 and where A9 came with two girl
children. Thereafter, on instructions of A1 and A3, the two girl children
were dropped near Chandramathi Mahal. PW19, in the course of deposing
before the Court, identified A1, A3, A5, and A9. The combined analysis of
evidence of PW3, PW4, PW16 and PW19 along with the questions that
were put to them during the cross examination, clearly establishes that two
girls were in fact kidnapped as alleged by the prosecution and this kidnap
drama, which commenced at around 8.10 a.m., on 16.11.2017 came to an
end at about 9.30 p.m.
24/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
30. One of the main ground that was raised on the side of appellants is
that there was absolutely no explanation for the delay in registering the FIR
only at 21:00 hrs., and the FIR reaching the Court the next day at about 4.40
p.m. Therefore, according to the appellants, the entire kidnap for ransom
was a cooked-up story, which never took place and the identity of the
accused persons was also highly questionable which vitiates the very
genesis of the case of the prosecution.
31. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence of all the above
witnesses clearly establishes the factum of kidnap of two girls and certainly
the prosecution had not come up with an imaginary case as is attempted to
be projected on the side of appellants. Thus, having crossed the first stage,
this Court must now analyse the evidence and see if the accused persons
have been properly identified and the charges have been proved against
them. While undertaking this process, this Court will also deal with the
admissibility and reliability of the scientific evidence that was sought to be
brought in by the prosecution to corroborate and strengthen their case.
25/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
32. Insofar as A1 is concerned, it is submitted that A1 was known to
PW1 since his father was working with PW1’s father and his brothers for a
long time and inspite of the same, when the complaint (Ex.P1) was given,
the name of A1 was not even mentioned in the complaint.
33. The other ground that has been raised is that it was admitted by
PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 that earlier complaints were made by PW1 and
PW2 and this complaint was concealed by the prosecution and the entire
case of the prosecution now proceeds on a delayed complaint that was given
on 16.11.2017 only at 21:00 hrs.
34. It is further contended that the accused persons were seen in the
police station on the very next day of the occurrence and they were
identified in the police station and therefore, the very purpose of conducting
the Test Identification Parade and identifying the accused persons in the
dock becomes questionable.
26/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
35. The final contention is that the witnesses for the arrest and
recovery, namely, PW15 and PW18 are none other than the employees of
PW1 and PW5 and they were planted witnesses, whose evidence cannot be
relied upon for the purpose of substantiating the arrest and recovery from
the accused persons.
36. It must be kept in mind that the present case involves kidnap of
two young school going girls and the mental trauma that has been suffered
by the parents and others after they come to know about the incident. The
parents and relatives and also the police will always focus upon tracing and
bringing back the children, who had been kidnapped and that mindset has to
be understood by the Court while analysing the evidence in a case of
kidnapping for ransom. In fact, on the analysis of the evidence, it can be
seen that PW3 was initially a suspect since he was the driver of the Innova
car and he had been taken to the police station for questioning. In this
process, it is quiet natural for the police to start the process of investigation
immediately after they come to know about the incident without wasting
27/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
their time in getting a formal complaint and registering the FIR.
37. The police will have to take immediate steps with the help of the
family of the kidnapped girls and in this process, sometimes even the
ransom amount is made ready with some identity to pass it on to the
kidnappers and to rescue the young children, who have been kidnapped. In
this process, it is quite natural that PW27, who is the Investigating Officer,
would have enquired several persons in the police station and the evidence
of PW3 becomes significant in this regard since he himself was a suspect in
this case. Hence in a case of this nature, the non-availability of the alleged
earlier complaint or the delay in the registration of FIR does not by itself
discredit the case of the prosecution unless there are strong cogent evidence
available before the Court to establish that the very complaint and the FIR
registered is a made-up case after a long deliberation by fixing the accused
persons. In the case in hand, certainly, the delay in the registration of the
FIR and the delay in the FIR reaching the Court by itself does not discredit
the case of the prosecution. In any event, an FIR is not an Encyclopaedia of
the entire case and therefore, the non-mentioning of the name of A1 in the
28/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
FIR does not by itself create any suspicion in the criminal law being set in
motion.
38. Insofar as the identity of the accused persons in the police station
is concerned, PW3, PW4 or PW15 or PW19 do not specifically say as to
which accused person was seen in the police station on the next day of the
occurrence. There is no clarity in this regard. Therefore, while analysing
their evidence, such stray statements that were made should not be carved
out of their evidence and their evidence will have to be analysed in totality.
In the case in hand, A1 has been identified in the Court by PW3, PW4,
PW16 and PW19. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.16,23,500/- has been
recovered from A1 in the presence of witnesses and there is absolutely no
explanation on the side of A1 when he was questioned under Section 313 (i)
(b) of Cr.P.C., as to how he came in possession of such huge amount of
cash. Significantly in this case, a close scrutiny of Ex.P13, which is the
Athatchi, two of the currency notes have been given an identity by the
police even when the ransom amount was sent and those identities have
been specifically mentioned in Ex.P13 Athatchi.
29/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
39. The other evidence that has to be taken into consideration is the
Test Identification Parade conducted by PW24. Ex.P37, which is the Test
Identification Parade report, clearly demonstrates that A1 has been
identified even in the course of investigation. Such identification may be
insignificant in this case since he was known to most of the witnesses. It is
now too well settled that Test Identification Parade is only a supporting
evidence and it is not a substantive evidence and it is only meant for the
investigation purposes to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves whether
the accused, whom they suspect, are really the one who were seen by them
at the commission of crime. The real test of Identification must take place
when the witness is in the dock and that is what is relevant and substantive
for the Court to act upon and satisfy itself that the accused has been
properly identified in the Court. Thus, the participation of A1 in the
commission of crime has been clearly established by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubts.
30/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
40. This Court will now consider the case of A3. Insofar as A3 is
concerned, he is said to have accompanied A1 in the car in the act of
kidnapping the victim girls. As stated supra, the involvement of A3 has been
spoken to by PW3, PW4 and PW19. Insofar as the arrest and recovery is
concerned, PW15 speaks about the same. From A3, a sum of Rs 2,00,000/-
was recovered under athatchi Ex.P16. Even in this case, there was one
currency note, which had been specifically marked by the police and which
was recovered from among the other currency notes. Whatever reasons that
have been assigned for A1 will equally apply to A3 also and hence the
participation of A3 in the commission of crime has been established beyond
reasonable doubts.
41. This Court will now go into the case of A8, who is the wife of A1.
42. The charge of conspiracy as against A8 has not been made out
since PW8 and PW11, who were examined on the side of the prosecution
turned hostile. There are only two sets of evidence available as against A8.
31/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
The first is the evidence of PW16, who speaks about the purchase of police
dress and PW15, who speaks about the arrest of A8. Nothing has been
recovered from A8. The only other evidence is the scientific evidence in
terms of CCTV footages.
43. The presence of A8 along with A1 in the shop on 15.11.2017,
which was spoken to by PW16 by itself does not substantiate the charge
under Section 120-B r/w 364(A) IPC. The mere arrest in the course of
investigation spoken to by PW15 does not in any way improve the case of
the prosecution to substantiate the charge of conspiracy against A8.
44. The only other evidence to be analysed is the scientific evidence
in terms of CCTV footages that was relied upon by the prosecution. This
Court deems it fit to deal with this evidence at this juncture.
45. PW22, who is the Inspector of Police of IT division, went to the
shop in which PW16 was working and he had recorded the CCTV footage
pertaining to the particular night hours on 15.11.2017 and it was converted
32/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
into a DVD, which was marked as PMO24. For this, PW22 also issued a
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, which is marked as
Ex.P33.
46. PW27 Investigating Officer has categorically admitted that the
CCTV footage was taken and copied in the DVD on 08.12.2017 and it was
produced before the Judicial Magistrate only on 12.12.2017. During this
period, there is absolutely no explanation regarding the chain of custody.
Apart from that, the prosecution has not attempted to collect the hard disk in
which the original recording had taken place and therefore there was no
occasion to analyse the contents of what was available in the hard disk and
what was actually copied to the DVD. Even the hash value notings have not
been made to ensure that what was copied was the one which was actually
sent for analysis. In the absence of the same, it will be very unsafe for the
Court to rely upon the CCTV footage as was recorded in the DVD and for
which 65B certificate was given by PW22. The certificate that was given by
PW22 does not pertain to the contents of the hard disk, where the original
CCTV footage was recorded. Thus, the CCTV footage relied upon by the
33/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
prosecution is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, merely because the trial
Court and this Court had an occasion to view the recordings copied in the
DVD, that by itself does not satisfy the requirements inspite of the solid
evidence that was available to the prosecution in terms of CCTV footages.
Due to unprofessional handling of the same, it has become inadmissible and
the prosecution has lost a golden opportunity to substantiate and strengthen
their case through scientific evidence.
47. In the light of the above discussion, even though there is strong
suspicion regarding the involvement of A8 in this case, since the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubts, the
benefit of doubt has to go in favour of A8.
48. This Court will now go into the case of A2.
49. The role played by A2, according to the prosecution, is that he
played a major role in the conspiracy and he was the one who demanded the
ransom by making a phone call to PW5.
34/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
50. PW5 speaks about the demand of ransom made from the mobile
number 8903832399, which was received in the mobile phone number
9843777788. This telephone conversation is said to have been recorded in
the mobile phone that was used by PW5. PW22, who is the Technical
Inspector, speaks about downloading the same and recording it in MO28 for
which he issued a certificate under Section 65B under Ex.P34.
51. PW25 speaks about the voice comparison conducted pursuant to
the requisition given by the Investigating Officer for collection of the
sample voice of A2 vide Ex.P43. Ex.P39 was the report submitted by PW25
identifying the voice of A2.
52. The prosecution also relies upon the telephone conversation that
took place from the mobile number belonging to the wife of A2, namely,
7502604531 to the mobile number of PW5 on 16.11.2017. Ex.P44 and
Ex.P45 which are the CDR details, which were marked through the
Investigating Officer, are relied upon for this purpose. Apart from the above,
the identity of A2 is sought to be established through the Test Identification
35/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Parade conducted by PW24 and the proceedings has been marked as
Ex.P37.
53. The last piece of evidence that is relied upon by the prosecution is
the recovery of cash of a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- (MO15) under athatchi
Ex.P15, which contained two notes, which were given specific identity and
also recovered along with the remaining currency notes.
54. The defence raised on the side of A2 is that the very arrest and the
recovery of material objects from A2 including cash is questionable
considering the glaring mistake pointed out in Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 regarding
the time gap, which was not able to be explained by PW27. Apart from that,
the athatchi did not even contain the signature of A2. The next line of
defence is that the scientific evidence collected on the side of the
prosecution is inadmissible in evidence since admittedly the mobile phone
of PW5 in which the recording is said to have done was not even seized.
Apart from that, PW22 had recorded in the MP3 format from PW5’s mobile
phone, whereas what was inspected/analysed by PW25 was M4a format,
36/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
which is evident from Ex.P39. There is no explanation as to how the format
was converted. That apart, the voice sample of A2 was not taken in the
presence of witnesses. Therefore, the so called mobile phone conversation
between A2 and PW5 is entirely inadmissible and it was contended that the
prosecution has not made out the case as against A2.
55. The active involvement of A2 in this case, commences from the
phone call that is alleged to have been made by A2 to PW5. PW5 in his
evidence states that he received a phone call from mobile number
8903832399 and there was a demand for a sum of Rs.2 crores as a ransom
and this call was received around 11.30 a.m. on 16.11.2017. After
negotiation, this amount was reduced to Rs.50,00,000/-. At the time of
receiving this phone call, obviously, PW5 was not aware that he is receiving
it from A2. Hence, if at all PW5 identifies A2, it can be only by recollecting
his voice and nothing more. Admittedly, the mobile phone used by PW5 was
not seized by the Investigating Officer and this was a major flaw on the part
of the Investigating Officer since the mobile phone itself would become a
primary evidence and there would not have been any requirement for
37/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
obtaining a 65B certificate. PW22 had downloaded the recorded voice in a
DVD marked as MO28 and had issued a 65B certificate, which was marked
as Ex.P34. It is also relevant to take note of the verbatim transcription of the
conversation that took place between A2 and PW5, which is available in the
annexures to Ex.P39.
56. The prosecution is also relying upon the CDR details that were
collected by the Investigating Officer in the course of investigation. Ex.P44
and Ex.P45 are relied upon for this purpose. That apart Ex.P47 is also relied
upon for the details of the call received using the mobile number
8903832399. Insofar as Ex.P44 is concerned, this was the mobile number
that belonged to the wife of A2 in which calls were received from different
numbers and it shows that the location was within Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli district, at the relevant point of time. Nothing much turns out of
this CDR details.
57. The next pertains to the call details of mobile number
9843777788. This mobile number stands in the name of
38/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Thangamuneeshwaran and PW5 gives an explanation that he is also called
in this name and PW27 at the time of deposing has admitted that he was the
brother of PW5, who was not examined by him. In any case, it has to be
seen as to whether the phone calls were received from 89038323889. PW5
in his evidence has specifically stated that he received the phone calls from
this number and he was using the mobile phone bearing number
9843777788. A careful analysis of the CDR shows that repeated calls have
been made to this number. On 16.11.2017 at about 13:22:30 hrs., the call
duration was for 229 seconds. Another call at 15:50:04 hrs., is for 217
seconds. Another call at 16:55:29 hrs., is for 505 seconds. There was yet
another call at 11:00:54 hrs., for 76 seconds. At 11:26:53 hrs., it was for 19
seconds. At 19:13:23 hrs., for 135 seconds. At 20:01:20 hrs., for 134
seconds and this goes on till 22:19:19 hrs. The nodal officer has given the
certificate under Section 65B and the CDR details have been marked
through the Investigating Officer. Just because it has been marked through
the Investigating Officer, that does not take away the credibility of the CDR
details, which has been certified by the Nodal Officer.
39/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
58. Insofar as the details of the mobile number 8903832399 is
concerned, the CDR details have been marked under Ex.P47. This mobile
number stands in the name of one Jeyaraj and the said Jeyaraj has not been
examined on the side of prosecution. The CDR details clearly provide the
phone calls that have been made from this number to 9843777788 on
16.11.2017 repeatedly. The 65B certificate has been given by the Nodal
Officer and Ex.P47 was marked through the Investigating Officer. As stated
supra, that by itself does not discredit Ex.P47.
59. Even though the mobile number stands in the name of Jeyaraj, it is
a very crucial fact that this mobile number has been specifically mentioned
in the complaint (Ex.P1). Therefore, Ex.P47 also carries a lot of significance
with respect to the CDR details.
60. The next scientific evidence is the voice comparison that was
made by PW25 pursuant to the request made by Investigating Officer.
40/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
61. It was urged on the side of prosecution that the original mobile
phone used by PW5 was not seized and therefore what was downloaded in a
DVD cannot be the source from which a voice sample test could have been
done by PW25. Fortunately, in this case, PW5 speaks about recording the
conversation that took place in the mobile and also the subsequent
downloading of the same in a DVD by PW22. Just because the Investigating
Officer has committed a mistake in not seizing the mobile phone under an
athatchi, the entire process that took place thereafter cannot be wiped off.
Therefore, the evidence of PW5 has to be relied upon for the purpose of
concluding that the recorded voice was downloaded from the mobile phone
used by PW5, by PW22. The downloaded voice recording of PW22 was
available in MO28 and for this PW22 has issued a 65B certificate. There is
no reason to discard MO28 in view of the explanation that was given by
PW5 read with the evidence of PW22.
62. PW25 speaks about the voice comparison conducted, which
confirmed the voice of A2. Ex.P39 is the report submitted by PW25 in this
regard. Just because there is a change of format from MP3 to M4a that by
41/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
itself does not take away the evidentiary value of the report given by PW25.
In fact, PW25 in her evidence does not anywhere state that such change of
format will result in the complete change in the voice recording made.
Hence, the evidence of PW25 has to be necessarily relied upon in this case.
63. Apart from the above scientific evidence, there is also recovery of
a sum of Rs.10,20,000/- under athatchi Ex.P15. Ex.P15 specifically contains
two identity marks made in two currency notes which were also recovered
along with the other currency notes. There is absolutely no explanation on
the side of A2 as to how he came in possession of such huge amount of
cash. Therefore, certainly the recovery of cash also corroborates the
evidence of PW5, PW22 and PW25.
64. The final limb of evidence against A2 is the Test Identification
Parade that was conducted by PW24. This accused person was not identified
in the Test Identification Parade either by PW3 or by PW4 or by PW19.
42/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
65. The involvement of this accused person has been clearly
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts more through
scientific evidence. In fact, the actual demand of ransom had started only
from this accused person, which resulted in payment of Rs.50,00,000/- out
of which, a substantial amount of Rs.10,20,000/- was recovered from A2.
66. This Court will now take up the case of A4 and analyse the
evidence available against A4 and see if the prosecution has established the
charge against A4.
67. The overt act attributed against A4 is that he had hatched the
conspiracy along with A5 and reached the vacant land along with A5, where
the victim girls and PW3 were shifted from the Innova car to Tata Indica
car. It is further alleged that A4 and A5 took the kidnapped girls in Tata
Indica car along with A1 to the house of A9. The further allegation against
A4 is that he had later shared the booty.
43/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
68. Insofar as the allegation of conspiracy is concerned PW8 and
PW11 were examined on the side of prosecution and both of them turned
hostile. PW15 speaks about the arrest and recovery of the material objects
from A4. PW24 speaks about the Test Identification Parade in which PW3,
PW4 and PW19 had participated. Ex.P37 is the Test Identification Parade
proceedings.
69. The learned counsel appearing for A4 submitted that the so called
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under athatchi P17 is highly doubtful
and it lacks credibility. When the Investigating Officer recorded the
statement of PW19 under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., he did not even disclose
the name of A4 but however he is said to have identified A4 in the Test
Identification Parade. This fact has been admitted by PW27 Investigating
Officer.
70. It was further contended that A4, when questioned under Section
313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., specifically denied the incriminating evidence stating
that he was illegally detained by the police from 16.11.2017 night till
20.11.2017.
44/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
71. The learned counsel concluded his submissions by stating that
PW3 and PW4, who are the key witnesses examined on the side of the
prosecution, did not even whisper about the presence or involvement of A4
in the entire incident.
72. Insofar as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, the same has not
been made out by the prosecution since PW8 and PW11 turned hostile. PW3
and PW4 neither identified A4 in the Test Identification Parade nor in the
dock and they do not even whisper about the involvement of A4. When the
statement of PW19 was recorded by the police under Section 161(3) of
Cr.P.C., he does not speak about the involvement of A4.
73. The only other material that has been put against A4 is the alleged
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the presence of PW15. Admittedly,
this recovery was not pursuant to any confession recorded by the police at
the time of arrest of A4.
45/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
74. On a consummate consideration of the evidence available against
A4, this Court holds that the prosecution has not proved the involvement of
A4 in the incident beyond reasonable doubts. A4 cannot be implicated
merely based on the recovery of money from him. The benefit of doubt has
to necessarily go in favour of A4.
75. This Court will now consider the case of A5 and see if the charge
has been made out against A5.
76. The allegation against A5 is that he had hatched the conspiracy
against the other accused persons and he was the one who reached the
vacant land along with A4 where PW3 and the victim girls were shifted in a
Tata Indica car from the Innova car. The further allegation against A5 is that
he was the one who took the ransom amount that was dropped by PW5 near
Tamil Sangam and had handed it over to A7.
46/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
77. For the purpose of identity of A5 in the alleged incident, the Test
Identification Parade was conducted by PW24 in which PW3, PW4 and
PW19 had participated. Apart from that, the involvement of A5 has been
spoken to by PW19 in his evidence. PW19 did not specifically identify A5
in the dock.
78. The learned counsel appearing for A5 submitted that if really
PW19 took A5 in the autorickshaw to Tamil Sangam, where it is alleged that
A5 took the ransom money of Rs.50,00,000/- which was kept by PW5, A5
could not have carried this amount except in a bag but however PW19 does
not state that A5 carried any bag while returning back to the auto. Apart
from that, in the statement that was recorded under Section 161(3) of
Cr.P.C., PW19 states that he took A5 from Anna Bus Stand to Tamil Sangam
but however while deposing before the Court, he states that he took A5 from
Anna Nagar to Tamil Sangam. Apart from that, PW5 has stated that there
was police presence near Tamil Sangam and therefore A5 could not have
taken such a huge amount without the police noticing him. Even though
CCTV was available as per the deposition of PW5, no such footage was
47/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the so called ransom amount that is
alleged to have been picked up by A5 near Tamil Sangam is artificial and
unbelievable.
79. The learned counsel further submitted that A5, while he was
questioned under Section 313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., had denied his involvement
and had stated that he was taking treatment in the de-addiction centre of the
Government Hospital and from there he was picked up to the police station.
80. The main witness whose evidence has to be taken into
consideration insofar as A5 is concerned is PW19. In the Test Identification
Parade PW3, PW4 and PW19 had participated. PW19 had identified A5
once in the Test Identification Parade. Apart from that PW3 had identified
A5 twice during Test Identification Parade.
81. PW3 in the dock did not identify A5. In any case, there was no
occasion for PW3 to speak about the involvement of A5 since his role
commenced after the children were shifted to the Tata Indica car.
48/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
82. PW19 makes a specific reference to identifying A5 in the Test
Identification Parade. He specifically states that A1 asked him to drop A5
near Tamil Sangam and after he was dropped, within five minutes, A5 came
back and he was again dropped at Anna Nagar Reliance. He further states
that except for the name of A1, he came to know about the names of the
other accused persons only from the police and then the accused persons
were shown to him in the police station and only thereafter the Test
Identification Parade was conducted. Surprisingly, PW19 does not
specifically identify A5 before the Court when he was in the dock.
83. It is further seen that, insofar as A5 is concerned, there was no
recovery of any money from him except for his arrest.
84. In the considered view of this Court, there is no sufficient
evidence to clinch the charges put against A5. The materials placed before
this Court at the best only creates a suspicion about the involvement of A5
and nothing more. It is now too well settled that even a strong suspicion will
49/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
not be enough to convict an accused person and the prosecution has to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubts, which has not happened in this
case insofar as A5 is concerned. Therefore, this Court has to hold that the
charges against A5 has not been proved by the prosecution.
85. This Court will now take into consideration the case of A6.
86. The overt-act attributed against A6 is that he had hatched the
conspiracy along with the other accused persons and had shared the booty.
PW8 and PW11 were examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the
charge of conspiracy and both of them turned hostile. The only other
material available against A6 is the arrest and recovery of material objects
which includes cash of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
87. Insofar as A6 is concerned, it is alleged that he was also involved
in the purchase of traffic police uniform from the shop on 15.11.2017. It is
not known as to how PW19 had identified A6 at the time of Test
Identification Parade since he came into the picture only when he picked up
50/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
A5 and took him to Tamil Sangam to collect the ransom and thereafter his
role is attributed when he dropped the children in the auto along with A1
and A3 from the house of A9 at Chandramathi Mahal, which is behind the
house of PW1. During cross examination, he has specifically admitted that
he has not mentioned anything about A6 at any point of time even when an
application was filed seeking for return of property.
88. The only other material available against A6 is the recovery of
material objects and cash. In the considered view of this Court, the evidence
available against A6 is very sketchy and it is not enough to prove the
charges against A6 beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the benefit of
doubt has to go in favour of A6.
89. This Court will now go into the case of A9.
90. As per the case of the prosecution, A9 was involved in a criminal
conspiracy and the children, after they were kidnapped, were kept in the
house of A9, where they were said to have been subjected to fear and threat
51/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
and later these children were picked up from the house of A9 by A1 and A3
and were dropped behind the house of PW1.
91. It is submitted on the side of the defence that the charge of
conspiracy has not been proved against A9 since PW 8 and PW11 turned
hostile. The charge under Section 368 of IPC has also not been proved since
both the observation mahazar Ex.P32 and rough sketch Ex.P23 does not
mention about the availability of the house of A9 as the place of
confinement.
92. Insofar as the identity of the accused person is concerned, it is
highly doubtful since PW4 and PW19 had seen all the accused persons in
the police station on 17.11.2017 and later identified in the Test
Identification Parade on 06.12.2017. There was absolutely no recovery from
A9 and therefore none of the charges were proved against A9.
93. Insofar as A9 is concerned, her involvement in the crime has been
specifically spoken to by the victim girl PW4. She identified A9 in the dock
52/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
by stating that she is the fat lady, who was seen in the house in which the
children were confined. She further talks about curd rice being offered by
A9, which was refused to be eaten and the threat exerted by showing the
dog. There is nothing to discredit the evidence of PW4 insofar as the
identity and the overt act attributed as against A9.
94. The other evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution is
the evidence of PW9, who turned hostile and nothing turns out of the
evidence of this witness.
95. This Court finds that the evidence of PW4 on the involvement of
A9 is wholly reliable considering the fact that she was a child witness and
there was no need for PW4 to falsely rope in A9 in this case. In view of the
same, it is not necessary for this Court to look for any corroboration for the
evidence of PW4 with regard to the involvement of A9 in this incident.
Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.
96. Finally, the case of A10 has to be dealt with by this Court.
53/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
97. The overt-act attributed against A10 is that he had hatched the
conspiracy along with the other accused persons and he had worn the traffic
police dress along with A1 while intercepting the Innova car. His
involvement has been spoken to by PW3 and PW4. For the purchase of the
police dress, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW16.
98. The prosecution is placing further reliance on the arrest and
recovery, which is spoken to by PW15.
99. The learned counsel for the defence submitted that the charge of
conspiracy completely falls to the ground since PW8 and PW11 turned
hostile. What was recovered from A10 had nothing to do with the
commission of the offence of kidnapping. Therefore, such recovery is of no
significance. Apart from that, A10 was not even subjected to Test
Identification Parade and was straight away identified in the dock by PW3
and PW4 and the same is highly suspicious since these accused persons
were seen in the police station on 17.11.2017 and were identified by the
police. The key witnesses, who speak about the involvement of A10, are
54/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
PW3 and PW4. As stated supra PW3 is the car driver and he deposed that
A10 was one of the persons who was wearing police uniform when the car
was intercepted near Muktheeswarar Temple. He further identified A10 in
the dock. A10 is a person, who was seen by PW3 and PW4 along with A1
and A3 and he has been specifically identified in the dock.
100. Insofar as the identity of the accused persons in the police
station, this Court has already held that there is no clarity as to which
accused persons were shown to the witnesses and this issue has already
been discussed in detail supra. Even during cross-examination, PW3
specifically identifies A10 and says that he was the one who was wearing
the police dress at the time when the Innova car was intercepted.
101. The next is the important evidence of the child PW4. The child
was not able to clearly identify any other accused person except A1.
However, she specifically speaks about the three persons intercepting the
car. Nothing more comes from the evidence of PW4 insofar as the
involvement of A10.
55/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
102. In terms of recovery, what has been recovered from A10 are 2
two-wheelers and this recovery does not really substantiate the case of the
prosecution.
103. In the light of the above discussion, what is apparent is that only
effective evidence available against the involvement of A10 along with the
identity comes from PW3. Admittedly, A10 was not a known person either
to PW3 or PW4 and for the reasons best known to the prosecution, A10 was
not subjected to Identification Parade. For the first time, A10 was identified
in the Court nearly after 5 years from the occurrence. This evidence of PW3
will fall under the category of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
Therefore, the evidence of PW3 will require corroboration. There is no
corroboration available. Therefore even though there is high degree of
suspicion regarding the involvement of A10 in this case, that cannot take the
place of proof beyond reasonable doubts which is expected of the
prosecution. Hence, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of A10.
56/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
104. The learned counsel appearing for A1 and A3 submitted that
even if on a demurer, the prosecution has made out a case against these
accused persons, the charge under Section 364A of IPC has not been made
out and at the best it can only be brought under a lesser offence of Section
363 of IPC. To substantiate this submission, the learned counsel relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in Ravi Dhingra v. State Of Haryana
reported in 2023 (2) MLJ Crl 219 and William Stephen v. State Of Tamil
Nadu and another reported in 2024 (5) SCC 258.
105. Insofar as the offence under Section 364A of IPC is concerned,
the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons had kidnapped or
abducted the person and kept the person in detention and after such
kidnapping have demanded for a ransom. In the judgments that were relied
upon by the learned counsel for A1 and A3, the Court had factually
ascertained that the element of threat to cause death or hurt or a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt is missing.
57/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
106. In order to ascertain the above ingredients, this Court carefully
went through the evidence of PW4. It must be kept in mind that PW4 at the
relevant point of time was studying 3rd standard and she along with her
younger sister were kidnapped by the accused persons. At the time when
PW4 gave evidence, she was studying 8th standard. Her capacity to
understand the questions and to test her competence as required under
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, it has been satisfied by the Trial
Court. PW4 specifically states that A9 offered curd rice and when PW4 and
her sister refused to eat, she threatened them by showing a dog and therefore
both of them got into the bed due to this threat. Thereafter, A1 offered cake
and it was tasting bitter. When they refused to eat, A1 and A9 forced the
children to eat the cake and as a result both children became unconscious.
107. Insofar as threat perspective is concerned, the threat experienced
by a child cannot be gauged from the point of view of an adult for whom the
same act will not amount to a threat. The Court has to necessarily put itself
in the shoes of the child and ascertain if there was a threat. The children,
58/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
who have been forcibly taken in a car, were brought to the house of A9 and
confined. They would have already suffered fear psychosis and when they
are threatened by showing a dog or forced to eat cake, which was tasting
bitter, certainly they would be put to a clear threat of apprehension that if
they do not comply, they will be hurt. There is a reason as to why the
legislature thought it fit bringing a severe sentence of life imprisonment in a
case of kidnapping for ransom. The innocent children, who have nothing to
do with the entire incident, were kidnapped and put to threat by the accused
persons to achieve their objectives. This incident will remain in the
subconscious mind of the children throughout their life and it will certainly
impact their emotional quotient. Therefore, the Courts must necessarily look
into these incidents with more seriousness and ensure that stringent
punishment is imposed against those who are involved in such serious
crimes.
108. The upshot of the above discussion leads to the only conclusion
that there was certainly a threat factor that was deployed against the children
and they indeed apprehended that if they don’t act as per the command, they
59/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
would be subjected to hurt or in their own mind, they thought there would
be a life threat. Therefore, the charge under Section 364A has been certainly
made out.
109. This Court, considering the fact that multiple accused persons
were involved, took pains to deal with the case of each and every accused
person and discuss the evidence available insofar as that accused person is
concerned and has rendered the above findings. Insofar as those accused
persons against whom it has been held that the charge has been made out,
this Court took into consideration the submissions made regarding certain
flaws pointed out in the investigation and this Court tested the evidence
keeping in mind the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhagirath reported in 1999 (5) SCC 96 and the relevant portions are
extracted hereunder:
“7. The High Court had failed to consider the implication of
the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the complicity of Bhagirath
particularly when the High Court found their evidence reliable. The
benefit of doubt was given to Bhagirath “as a matter of abundant
caution”. Unfortunately, the High Court did not point out the area60/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023where there is such a doubt. Any restraint by way of abundant
caution need not be entangled with the concept of the benefit of
doubt. Abundant caution is always desirable in all spheres of
human activity. But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs
exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of
benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which
a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the
entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the
offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the
criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be
administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to
be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the
entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably
entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.
8. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all
the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be
convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt.
Of course, the expression “reasonable doubt” is incapable of
definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords
moral certainty to the Judge.”
61/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
110. Even though PW8 and PW11, who were examined as witnesses
on the side of the prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy turned
hostile, insofar as A1 to A3 and A9 are concerned, the charge of conspiracy
is clearly made out since on appreciation of evidence, it is seen that there
was clear meeting of minds between these accused persons before the
commission of the crime and as a result, each accused person had performed
the role that was specifically assigned in the course of the same transaction.
This could not have happened without the prior meeting of minds between
these accused persons. Therefore, they are liable to be punished for the
charge of criminal conspiracy also.
111. The conspectus of the above discussions leads to the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable
doubts as against A4, A5, A6, A8 and A10 and hence they are entitled for
the benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal from this case. Insofar as
A1, A2, A3 and A9 are concerned, their conviction and sentence stands
confirmed in the following manner.
62/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
Rank of the Offences for which
Sentenced to undergo
accused convicted (IPC)
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
A1 120B r/w 364A
default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in
364A
default to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
419 Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months
Rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of
341 Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one week
Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of
342 Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
A2 120(B) r/w 364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
One year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
342 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
A3 120B r/w 364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of
419 Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months
Rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of
341 Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one week
Rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of
342 Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
A9 120B r/w 364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
368 r/w 364A
default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment
63/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
112. The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
113. In the result,
(i) Crl.A(MD) No.97 of 2023 stands allowed and the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.267 of 2019 dated 21.12.2022
on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai. are
hereby set aside and the appellant/A6 is acquitted of all the charges. Bail
bond, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any, shall be refunded.
(ii) Crl.A.(MD) No.144/2023 is partly allowed in the following terms:
(a) As far as the appellants/A2,A3,A9 are concerned, their conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellants/A2, A3 and A9 in S.C.No.267 dated
21.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Madurai is hereby confirmed
(b) The trial Court is directed to take necessary steps to secure the
presence of A9 to undergo the remaining period of sentence; and
(c) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A4, A5
and A10 in S.C.No.267 of 2019 dated 21.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions
64/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, are hereby set aside and the
appellants/A4,A5 and A10 are acquitted of all the charges and they are set at
liberty forthwith. Bail bonds, if any shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if
any, shall be refunded.
(iii) Crl.A(MD) No.222 of 2023 is partly allowed;
(a) As far as A1 is concerned, the conviction and sentence in S.C.No.
267 of 2019 dated 21.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Neethimandram, Madurai, is hereby confirmed; and
(b) Insofar as A8 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed
in S.C.No.267 of 2019 dated 21.12.2022 on the file of the Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Madurai, are hereby set aside and she is acquitted
of all the charges. Bail bond, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if
any, shall be refunded.
[N.A.V, J.] & [K.K.R.K, J.]
10.04.2026
NCC : Yes
Index : Yes
65/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
RR
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Madurai
2.The Inspector of Police,
B3 Teppakulam Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section officer (English Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
66/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.97 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RR
Judgment made in
Crl. A. (MD)Nos.97, 144 and 222 of 2023
10.04.2026
67/67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
