RAHAMATHULLA KHAN @ PYARE Vs. STATE BY YALAHANKA POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by accused No.2, assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10/11.9.2012 passed by the Fast Track (Sessions) Judge-V, Bangalore City in SC.No.564/2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the averments of the complaint at Ex.P4 filed by the father-in-law of the deceased that he is residing in the address given in the complaint and doing foam business. His son-in-law deceased Jafer Ali Khan who was working in Dubai came back to India. He was having two wives, by name Salma Parveen-PW.7 who is the daughter of the complainant and Uzmahar, daughter of Babu. After coming from Dubai the deceased Jafer Ali Khan was intending to start saree polish business and also finance business. On 15.12009, during morning hours, as usual the deceased went out of the house and thereafter he did not turn up or telephoned. It is further case of the complainant that on 18.12009 Rahamathulla, brother of the deceased met the complainant and informed him that the second wife of the deceased called him that deceased did not speak properly over phone and he was facing some problem and asked him to enquire about the same. The said Rahamathulla also told the complainant that on 15.12009 the deceased was sitting near Shampur Road Masjid Cross by keeping his hands on his head. There were also two persons along with the deceased one with inshirt and another one with simple dress. When he asked the deceased as to why he was so dull and told him that he would take him to the hospital for which the deceased told that he was alright. Thereafter, those two persons who were with the deceased told that they would only take the deceased to the hospital and by saying so, they took the deceased in a Tata Indica Car at about 6.00 p.m. It is also averred in the complaint that on 16.12009 at about 8.00 p.m., from the phone number of the deceased, i.e., from 9035844839 the second wife of the deceased received a phone call to her mobile bearing No.9742091311 informing that the deceased was in Ramanagara and again on 17.12009 at about 11.00 p.m. with the same phone number, the deceased informed that he was in Ramanagara. Thereafter, on 18.12009 at about 10.00 a.m. again, he informed that he was proceeding to Mysore. It is further case of the complainant that on 17.12009 when the first wife of the deceased called the deceased through phone bearing No.9035429697 at about 11.45 p.m. the said call was disconnected and again on 18.12009 when Rahamathulla called the deceased through phone bearing Nos.8050698225 and 9880698198, the said calls were also disconnected. Again at 6.15 p.m., the deceased called from the phone bearing No. 9343016685 stating that he was proceeding to Mysore. The complainant filed the said complaint stating that the persons who were with his son-inlaw Jafer Ali Khan have kidnapped him and therefore he prayed for legal action against them.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.459/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 363 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently during the course of investigation, it is noticed that the son-in-law of the deceased was kidnapped for ransom and was murdered and in order to screen the offence, the accused persons buried the body and destroyed the SIM cards and other articles. On the basis of the memo filed by the Police Sub-Inspector, the case was converted to Sections 364, 302, 120B, 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid as against the accused persons. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, charge was prepared, which was read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.