SMT. BRIGETA MICHEL Vs. SHAIK GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN @ GHOUSE @ SAIBU AND THE STATE OF A.P. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State and revision by the complainant are filed assailing the judgment, dated 30.06.2008, rendered by the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C. No. 484 of 2007. The sole accused therein was acquitted by the trial Court. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased, a boy of 11 years, by name, Som Stallone, lost his parents in an accident, some time in October, 2002, and ever since then, he is residing with the complainant -PW. 1 and her other family members. PW. 1, who claims to be the mother of Samson -the father of the deceased boy, is said to have employed the accused as driver, on 08.01.2003. On the fateful day i.e. on 13.01.2003, the deceased was said to be playing with kites on the terrace of the third floor, and at 11.30 A.M., the accused has taken the boy out, and that the same was seen by a maidservant -PW. 4, and a care taker -cum -driver of auto, LW. 6. PW. 1 is said to have gone out for a bank transaction and around noon, she received a phone call from her son -PW. 3, that Som Stallone was missing and she returned home by 2.30 P.M. After arrival of PW. 1, a phone call is said to have been received by PW. 3, from a stranger stating that he has kidnapped Som Stallone and if a ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/ - is paid, by 5.00 P.M., at Hussainsagar, the boy would be returned, else, his dead body would float in the Hussainsagar itself. Soon thereafter, PW. 1 filed a complaint -Ex. P.1, before P.S. Panjagutta.

(2.) DURING the course of investigation, the police is said to have arrested the accused on 14.01.2003, and on the basis of the information given by him, they have located the dead body nearby a water tank at Kukatpally. The Investigating Officer (IO) -PW. 3, caused the inquest and sent the body for post -mortem to PW. 9, and has taken up further investigation. The prosecution has also stated that IO found human hair in the fist of the deceased and the same was compared with the hair samples taken from the accused. In the Forensic Report, marked as Ex. P.14, PW. 11, is said to have opined that all the samples of the hair examined by him are similar in nature. Another fact pleaded by the prosecution was that a metal button was found near the dead body of the deceased and when compared with the buttons on the shirt of the accused, it was found to be similar. With these and other related facts, the IO filed a charge -sheet and the trial Court accordingly framed charges against the accused.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the complainant -PW. 1, who filed the revision with the leave of the Court, submit that the trial Court omitted to take into account the important features of evidence, though circumstantial in nature. They submit that the fact that the accused has taken the deceased with him was spoken to by PW. 4 and since she is not an interested witness, her evidence is trustworthy. They further submit that a strong circumstance in the case was the presence of the hair in the fist of the deceased and when the same was compared with the samples, collected from the head of the accused, they were found to be of similar nature, and thereby, a fool proof case is made out to link the incident with the accused. They also submit that the button (M.O. 2), which was present nearby the dead body, was found to be from the shirt of the accused. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanbi Karsan Jadav v. State of Gujarat : AIR 1966 SC 821.