Madras HC reduces life term of three accused to five years

Chennai: The disappearance of crucial evidence relating to telephonic conversation between the accused and father of a kidnapped eight-year-old girl, demanding ransom for her release in 2002 in Puducherry, from the lower court, has benefited three accused to escape life sentence awarded by trial court. The Madras high court has set aside the life sentence for want of evidence and awarded five-years RI on them for kidnapping the girl.

A Division Bench comprising Justices S.Nagamuthu and V.Bharathidasan, however, directed the Registry to hold a thorough enquiry into the episode as to how the valuable property (CD containing the telephonic conversation) in a sensational case had disappeared and to take appropriate action.

On October 18, 2002 when Sangavi came out of school, she was kidnapped by three accused.  As the girl did not return home, the girl’s father lodged a police complaint and informed them that he received a call demanding Rs 2 lakh for returning the girl. Thereafter, as directed by police, he recorded the subsequent two conversations.

Finding that the calls were made from public booths in Chengi, the police rushed to Chengi and on enquiry arrested Viswanathan. On his confession Selvam and Bagavathi were arrested and the girl was rescued.  

In 2003, the case was made over to Additional Assistant sessions judge for trial. Charges were framed  in July 2005. The case was later transferred to II Additional sessions judge for trial. But the property (CD) submitted to magistrate were not sent to the trial court.

Thereafter, there were many correspondences between the judges. Since the properties were once for all lost and the accused were entitled for speedy trial, the II Additional sessions judge proceeded with the trial in 2014 in the absence of production of the property and awarded life sentence to the accused. Aggrieved, they filed the present appeals.

Partly allowing the appeal, the bench said the prosecution was not able to prove the demand of ransom by these accused through the oral evidence of father of the girl. However, from the girl’s evidence and the evidence of two other witnesses, the prosecution had clearly proved the three accused kidnapped the girl.