VUSHA VIJAYAVALLI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.1 to 6 in S.C. No.485/2001 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, filed this appeal, challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 22.7.2002, whereby A1 to A6 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 364 IPC, Al to A6 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 364-A IPC, A3 was convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 370 IPC, A3 and A4 were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 302 IPC, A1, A2, A5 and A6 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, A3 and A4 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month under Section 201 IPC, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The gravamen of the charges against the accused was that they kidnapped a girl of seven years age by name Tanuja for ransom, killed her, and tied a boulder to her waist and threw the dead body in a reservoir.

(3.) The facts that led to the filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as follows. Tanuja is daughter of P.Ws.2 and 22 and granddaughter of P.W.3. A1 and A6 are related to P.W.2, mother of Tanuja. A2 to A5 have acquaintance with each other. On 6.12.2000, as usual P.W.3 sent Tanuja to the School in the auto of P.W.10. P.W.10 dropped Tanuja along with other school children P.Ws.6 and 21 at the school. After the school started, P.W.1 was taking the attendance of the students. She found that Tanuja was missing. She also found Tanuja's school bag in the class. She sent two students to search for Tanuja in the school. They could not locate Tanuja in the school. They informed the same to P.W.1. P.W.1 immediately informed the Vice-Principal of the school about the missing of Tanuja. The Vice-Principal rang up the residence of Tanuja and informed P.W.3-the grandmother of Tanuja that Tanuja was missing. P.W.3 immediately rushed to the school. She and P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 F.I.R. with the police. P.W.24 registered a case and started investigation. By about afternoon on the next day, the parents of Tanuja, who were out of station, reached Hyderabad. P.W.2 informed the police that she was suspecting A1 and A6 in the episode. On 7.12.2000 at about 1.30 p.m., P.W.22 received a telephone call. The caller introduced himself as Ramu. He told P.W.22 that Tanuja was in their custody and to secure her release he should pay Rs.10 lakhs as ransom. P.W.22 installed a caller I.D. and when he again received calls from the caller he informed the police. On verification it was found that the calls were made from a public booth at M.G. Bus Station, Hyderabad. During the course of investigation, P.W.25 arrested A1 and in pursuance of her confessional statement, he recovered school diary of Tanuja, the sari Al wore at the time when she took away Tanuja from the school. Al led P.W.25 to the house of A4. A4 led the police to the reservoir, which Tanuja was thrown into after being killed. The dead body was taken out from the reservoir. It was identified to be of Tanuja. Photographs of the dead body were taken. P.W.25 prepared a rough sketch of the scene, seized incriminating articles, and held inquest over the dead body. The dead body was sent for conducting post-mortem examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Accused pleaded not guilty. The Prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents besides M.Os.l to 24. The Trial Court on assessment of evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, aggrieved by which the accused preferred the present appeal.