Infy security guard convicted of kidnapping colleague acquitted

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A security guard at Infosys, Mysuru, who was convicted by a trial court for kidnapping and wrongful restraint of a woman colleague, has been acquitted by the High Court of Karnataka.

The II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru had convicted him to undergo three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 (Kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one year of rigorous imprisonment under Section 341 (wrongful restraint).

The HC, however, said that the evidence against him was inconsistent. Both of them have been removed from service.

Noting that the complainant had travelled freely with the accused, the HC said, “If at all the accused really abducted the complainant, the question of her getting into the car, sitting in the car and travelling along with the accused does not arise. The complainant has stated in her cross-examination that she has never tried to escape from the clutches of the accused and never tried to raise an alarm, she has travelled with the accused to so many places and therefore, it cannot be believed that the accused abducted her and compelled her.”

N Mahadevaiah filed an appeal before the High Court against the judgement of the Trial Court in 2012. It was heard by Justice K Natarajan who gave his judgement recently.

One Rathnamma had filed a complaint against him. The incident dates back to when both were working in Infosys as security guards. Rathnamma had filed another complaint against Puttappa, another security officer for misbehaving with her.

Rathnamma called Mahadevaiah near the Ontikoippal temple on March 11, 2010, to seek his help in her complaint against Puttappa. The two along with the wife of Mahadevaiah travelled in a car.

The wife allegedly got down to buy bangles but did not return. Rathnamma alleged that Mahadeviah then took her to Kabini Dam and later to a lonely place in a forest nearby.

He allegedly tried her hands and gagged her mouth. They then reached Saraguru. Mahadevaiah went to buy food when Rathnamma called one Suresh with the help of another person.

She was thus rescued. In the HC, Mahadevaiah’s advocate argued that “there is inconsistency and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 (Rathnamma) and her complaint made before the Police.”

It was also pointed out that there was a 15-day delay in lodging the complaint and the reason is not properly explained. The HC noted that Rathnamma’s case was inconsistent.

“When the complainant herself boarded the vehicle of the accused voluntarily and travelled from place to place and she wanted the accused as a witness to support her case and later, she stated that the accused threatened her not to give evidence in her complaint against Sri Puttappa, her case cannot be believed, it said.

Acquitting Mahadevaiah, the HC said, “The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 366 of IPC. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the appellant is directed to be refunded to the complainant after due identification.”

(CrlA 173/2012)