STATE Vs. V.KARNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.20 of 2004, dated 23.12.2009 on the file of the III Additional Special Court, Chennai, whereby, the respondents/A1 and A2 were acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. in respect of the charges levelled against them under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 364 read with 34 IPC, 385 read with 34 IPC and Section 352 read with 34 IPC.

(2.) At the relevant point of time, A1 was the Inspector of Police and A -2 to A -4 were the Head Constables. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 / de -facto complainant was running a pawn broker shop in No.262, Kamaraj Street, Villupuram. One Thirunendran is having a jewellery shop in NSC Bose Road, Chennai and since P.W.2 was a member of the Jewellery Shop Owners' Association in Villupuram, he claims to have purchased gold ingots from the said Thirunendran on two occasions. Apart from this, P.W.2 had no other transaction. While so, on 12.12.2002 at about 6.15 a.m., when P.W.2 came out of the house and was waiting for collecting newspaper, a Tata Qualis car bearing Registration No.TN -05 -D -1240 arrived and halted in front of the house of P.W.2. A2 and A3 who got down from the vehicle, asked P.W2 to identify a person who was inside the vehicle. While he was looking inside the car to identify the person, he was pushed inside the said car and on seeing this, when P.W.2's wife questioned them, she was threatened to shut her mouth, otherwise, she was warned that she would also be taken along with P.W.2, her husband. Immediately, the said vehicle sped away to D2 Anna Salai Police Station. P.W.2 found two persons were sitting inside the car with handcuff and the other person who was sitting in the left front seat of the vehicle, claimed that he is the Inspector of Police. Apart from the above persons, there were five other persons in the vehicle. The Inspector of Police/A1, by pointing out the two persons who were with handcuff, enquired P.W.2 as to whether they were known to P.W.2. P.W.2 identified only Kumar who was the person who was working under the said Thirunendran. P.W.2 was beaten by the Police severely and threatened by A -1/Inspector of Police stating that as if P.W.2 has received gold ingots from the said Kumar, who returned the same. When P.W.2 denied receipt of the gold ingots, he was severely beaten by the accused persons in D2 Anna Salai Police Station. A1 demanded Rs.8 lakhs stating that if the money is not paid, a case will be registered against him as if he has purchased the theft gold ingots from the said Kumar, who was a staff of Thirunendran Jewellery merchant running jewellery shop in NSC Bose Road, Chennai.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State submitted that the trial Court, without assigning any valid reason, totally disbelieved the version of the prosecution witnesses and came to an erroneous conclusion that the occurrence as alleged by P.W.2 had not taken place and the respondents/accused have not committed any offence. In this regard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.2/de -facto complainant, submitted that P.W.2 has clearly narrated the incident that had taken place from the time of his abduction in the car till he reached Villupuram and he was released only on the next day after payment of the part amount of Rs.50,000/ -. P.W.3 is none other than the wife of P.W.2 and her evidence clearly corroborates the version of P.W.2, stating that her husband P.W.2 was forcibly taken in Qualis Car on 12.12.2002 and he returned to Villupuram only after two days. The trial Court has not assigned any valid and convincing reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. On the other hand, the trial Court erroneously considered the evidence of defence witnesses D.Ws.1 to 5, which did not have any nexus with the evidence of P.W.2, thereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. Learned Additional Public Proscutor prayed for allowing the appeal and to convict the respondents/accused by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial Court.