SHASHIDHAR PURANDHAR HEGDE AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 15-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHASHIDHAR PURANDHAR HEGDE AND ANR. 
v. 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
OCTOBER 15, 2004 
[ ARIJIT PASAYA T AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 263, 506 and 507-Kidnapping-Manner 
of kidnapping and his rescue clearly narrated by kidnapped child-Demand 
C of ransom and threat to father of child-Version of child and father 
corroborated by other witnesses-Accused apprehended by some· witnesses-
Case reported to police after apprehension of accused-Seizure of small 
ropes and knife from one of the accused-Acquittal by trial Court doubting 
the roles played by witnesses who apprehended the accused and in view of 
certain discrepancies in the evidence of some witnesses-Conviction by High 
D Court relying on evidence of kidnapped child and his father-On appeal, 
held: High Court rightly convicted the accused. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Criminal appeal-
Against order of acquittal-Power of Appellate Court to reappreciate 
evidence-Held, generally the order of acquittal should not be interfered 
E with-But where admissible evidence is ignored, it is duty of appellate Court 
to reappreciate evidence-If two views are pos~ible on the evidence, view 
favourable to the accused should be adopted. 
Criminal Trial: 
F 
Discrepancies-In evidence of witnesses-Evidentiary value of-Held: 
G 
H 
Minor discrepancies cannot be termed as contradictions unless such 
discrepancies affect credibility of evidence-Whether any omission in the 
evidence amounts to contradiction is a question of fact-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973-Section 162. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Contradiction"-Meaning of 
Appellants-accused were prosecuted for having kidnapped PW-3. 
536 
SHASHIDHARPURANDHARHEGDEv.STATEOFKARNATAKA 
537 
According to prosecution Accused persons kidnapped PW-3 from his school A 
and held him in forest and threatened him. They had also made telephone calls 
to PW-I father of PW-3 telling him that they had kidnapped his son, demanding 
ransom of Rs. 3 lakh and further threatening him if the matter was reported 
to Police his son would be killed. PW-20 had seen PW-1 talking over phone 
and was looking scared. PW-1 told him about the kidnapping and demand of B 
ransom to be kept at a certain place with particular identification. PW-I 
informed it to his nephew who himself and alongwith his friends i.e. PWs 
2,4,5 and 6 went to the school of PW-3 and made enquiry from his teacher 
and friends. Thereafter they went to the indicated place with fake currency 
notes in a bag and kept the same at the indicated place. When A-2 came to 
take the bag they caught hold of him and he revealed that A-1 was holding C 
PW-3. They took A-2 to the place and apprehended A-1 and rescued PW-3. 
Thereafter information was lodged with police and accused were handed over 
to police. Accused were tried u/ss. 363, 368, 506 and 507 r/w Section 34 
IPC. During trial PW-3 specifically and clearly narrated the manner of 
kidnapping by the accused and manner of rescue. Prosecution version was 
supported by evidence of PWs 7 and 11 who had seen A-1 calling on telephone D 
demanding Rs. 3 lakhs for returning the child, PW-13, teacher of PW-3 had 
seen him talking to A-1, PWs 9 and IO stated that A-1 had purchased kumkum 
and lemon from their respective shops, PW-8 had seen A-1 taking PW-3 on 
his bike, A-1 had enquired about PW-3 from PWs 20 and 21, PW-24, police 
official had seized hand bag containing small ropes and knife from the person E 
of A-1. Trial Court found some discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 8, 12 
and 22, friends of PW-3 and doubted the roles played by PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6, 
and hence directed acquittal on the ground that accusations had not been 
established. On appeal, High Court reappreciated the evidence and relying 
on the prosecution evidence held the appellants-accused guilty of offences 
punishable u/s 363 r/w Section 34 IPC and additionally sentenced appellant F 
No.I u/s 506 and 507 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely 
because they first made attempt to find out whether the place where the G 
kumkum and lemon were kept was the place where the accused persons had 
hidden PW-3. The class mates of the victim have given proper identification 
of the accused by their description. This clearly corroborates the evidence of 
PW-3 and since his evidence is cogent and credible the trial Court had 
erroneously directed acquittal of the accused
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.