Aaskumar Srishankar Gupta vs The State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 536 Bom

                                   judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      APPELLATE SIDE




                                                                         
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 93 of 2005.




                                                
     Aaskumar Srishankar Gupta
     Age 22 years, Occupation Mason,
     residing at Dattatray Nathu Pokale
     Chawl, Vadgaon Dhayari,Pune                .. Appellant.




                                               
                                          (Original Accused No.1).

                  Versus




                                 
     The State of Maharashtra                  ..Respondent.
                   ig      ALONG WITH
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 761 of 2005.
                 
     Rajesh Srimotichand Prasad,
     age 24 years, Occupation business,
     residing at Dattatray Nathu Pokale
     Chawl, Vadgaon Dhayari,Pune              .. Appellant.
      

                                       (Original Accused No.2).
   



                  Versus

     The State of Maharashtra                  ..Respondent.





     Smt. Rohini Dandekar, Advocate appointed for the Appellant in
     Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2005.
     Mr Vijay Hiremath i/by Ms Rebecca Gonsalvez, Advocate,
     appointed for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2005.
     Mr J. P. Kharge, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.





                  CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND
                            A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED OF RESERVING JUDGMENT:

17th DECEMBER, 2012.

DATE FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT :- 21st DECEMBER, 2012.

1 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

JUDGMENT (PER A.R.JOSHI,J).

1) Heard respective learned advocates for the appellants

and also heard learned A.P.P. for the State in both the appeals

which are being disposed of by this common judgment and

order as both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment

and order passed in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2004.

2) Sessions Case No. 74 of 2004 was decided by judgment

and order dated 30th November, 2004 by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune. Both the appellants were convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of

IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to

pay fine of Rs.2,000/-each, in default to suffer RI for two

months each. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

order present separate appeals were preferred by respective

original accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3) The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as under :-

One Shantaram Kumbhar (PW No.1) was residing at

Katraj Pune along with his wife Sneha (PW No.4), his minor son

Sumit (PW No.5), one daughter and mother-in-law. During

Diwali festival of the year 2002 there was some flooring work

started at the house of the complainant. The work contract was

given to one Prakash Jogdand (PW No.2) who was well known

2 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

to the complainant. Said Jogdand had engaged present

appellant accused No.1 to do the said work of flooring.

Appellant-accused No.1 was doing the said work and also

engaged appellant accused No.2, his acquaintance and both

were doing the work of flooring at the house of complainant

Shantaram Kumbhar for about a week prior to the actual day of

the incident. Due to this work both the appellants - accused

were known to the complainant and his family members

including minor boy Sumit (PW No.5) whose age was four

years at that time.

4) The incident of kidnapping said minor Sumit occurred on

24th October, 2002. On that day, complainant PW No.1 had left

his house for his usual duty at 7:30 a.m. Till the evening of that

day the work of flooring was going on and those being Diwali

holidays, Sneha PW No.4 was at home along with her children.

Minor son Sumit PW No.5 went out of the house after taking

meal saying that he will be playing with his one companion

Vidya from neighbourhood. Thereafter, it was noticed that said

minor boy Sumit was missing and his whereabouts were not

found. Enquiries were made by Sneha with Vidya and on this

she revealed that Sumit had gone out along with two persons

who were doing masonry work in the house of the complainant.

In fact, it was revealed that both the said persons had taken

3 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

victim boy on one scooter. Sneha, mother of the boy started the

search and informed her husband regarding missing of their son.

On this, complainant PW No.1 contacted his friend Jogdand and

got address of the appellants from him. House of appellant No.1

was visited but it was found locked. In the meantime, a

telephone call was received at about 2:30 p.m. from one person

giving his name as Ismail Shaikh and that he wanted to talk to

the Sir i.e. the complainant PW No.1. This call was received by

Sneha (PW No.4), wife of the complainant. She narrated this

incident to her husband. Thereafter, PW No.1 sensing some foul

play in the missing of his son, went to Katraj police station for

lodging the complaint.

5) It is also the case of the prosecution that when

complainant PW No.1 had been to Katraj police station in the

meantime at about 3:15 p.m. Sneha received another phone call

at her house. Again, it was the call from the person who gave his

name as Ismail and that time there was a demand of Rs.2 lakhs,

to be kept ready and that said person Ismail would again call

back by 7:30 p.m. and would talk with the complainant PW

No.1. It was also threatened on the phone that the matter not to

be disclosed to police. On this Sneha PW No.4 assured the

person that she will arrange for money and prayed not to do

anything to their son Sumit. On this telephone call received at

4 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

3:15 pm, Sneha immediately rushed to Katraj police station and

met her husband complainant. Accordingly, detail complaint

was lodged by complainant PW No.1. It was recorded at said

Katraj Police chowky and it was sent to Sahakar Nagar Police

Station along with the report of the PSI who recorded the

complaint. Offence was registered at Sahkar Nagar Police

Station vide C.R. No.225 of 2002 initially for offence under

section 363, 384 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6) It is also the case of the prosecution that in order

to find out the trace of the missing boy and to ascertain the

location of the accused persons, arrangement was made to

install caller ID machine to the telephone at the residence of the

complainant PW No.1. On that night a telephone call was

received and details were given as to how the ransom amount of

Rs.2 lakhs was to be placed at Chandni chowk bridge and after

keeping money by the side of bridge at Chandni chowk to be

kept in a cotton bag, the person was to go home and then her

kidnapped boy would be let free and would be sent back home.

This telephone call was received by PW No.1 in presence of the

police persons who were present at the residence. Accordingly,

an amount of Rs.1.25 lakh was collected and kept in one cotton

bag and complainant along with his friend left the house on

motorcycle and went to Chandni chowk near Warje Malwadi.

5 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

However, on the way, the complainant received a message on his

mobile that his son was found and two accused persons were

also apprehended and complainant was asked to go to Sahakar

Nagar Police Station.

7) According to the case of the prosecution, a trap was

arranged at Chandni chowk on revealing instructions over

telephone and in which PW No.2 Prakash Jogdand also took

part as he was well acquainted with appellant accused No.1. As

such on the spot initially accused No.1 was found wandering in

suspicious circumstances and he was accosted and after he was

identified by Jogdand PW No.2, he was apprehended and taken

in custody. On his interrogation, whereabouts of his associate

appellant accused no.2 and also of the kidnapped boy Sumit

were found and they were taken in custody from the hilly area

near Chandni chowk. Both the appellants accused and the victim

boy were brought to Sahkar Nagar Police Station. After arrival of

the complainant, victim boy was given in his custody. Both the

appellants-accused were put under arrest.

8) During investigation a Vespa make scooter having

registration No. MH-12-V/2697 was discovered at the instance

of the appellant-accused No.1. It was taken charge of under the

panchnama on 26.10.2002. During investigation registered

owner of the said scooter was found out. He was one person by

6 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

name Bhaskar Bhavar PW No.8. His statement was recorded and

according to him, he had given the said scooter to appellant-

accused No.1 for use though the ownership still remained with

said PW No.8.

9) During investigation statements of witnesses were

recorded. Further statement of complainant was also recorded

and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before

the concerned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,Pune for the

charges punishable under Sections 363, 384 read with section

34 of IPC. As those charges were triable by JMFC, after framing

requisite charges both the appellants were put to trial before the

JMFC Pune and recording of evidence was started. Even the

entire evidence was recorded and hearing the argument was

also done and matter was kept for judgment. That time on

perusal of the entire record and the evidence given before him,

JMFC Pune came to the conclusion that the matter attracts

punishment for Section 364-A of IPC and offence under said

section is exclusively triable by the court of Session. Hence,

instead of pronouncing the judgment the matter was committed

to the Court of Session and under these circumstances the

matter came before the Additional sessions Judge, Pune and it

was again taken up for trial after framing the appropriate

charges and after recording of evidence afresh, impugned

7 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

judgment and order was passed. This judgment and order of

conviction is challenged in the present appeal.

10) Prior to discussing the rival arguments and mainly

arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants-accused by

respective counsel, certain admitted position and salient features

of the matter are required to be mentioned in order to have

proper perspective of the case. Certain factual position is as

under.

(a) Both the appellants were working in the house of the

complainant Shantaram and they were doing the flooring work

about a week prior to the incident of 24.10.2002. The appellant

accused No.1 was given the said work by PW No.2 Prakash

Jogdand who was requested by complainant Shantaram to carry

out the said work of flooring.

(b) The victim boy Sumit Kumbhar PW No.5 was missing

from the afternoon of 24.10.2002. So also both the appellants

accused were absent from their work of flooring.

(c) PW No.8 one Bhaskar Bhavar was the owner of the

scooter Vespa bearing registration No. MH-12-V/2697 and he

had given the said vehicle for use of appellant accused No.1.

11) Bearing in mind the above factual position, it is to be

8 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

ascertained, whether the substantive evidence brought before

the trial Court and mainly the evidence of PW No.1, 4 and 5

(complainant, his wife Sneha and son Sumit) coupled with the

the substantive evidence of PW No.2 Prakash Jogdand and the

substantive evidence of PW No.7 Ravindra Patil, owner of

Galaxy Menswear shop and the substantive evidence of PW No.8

Bhaskar Bhavar, owner of scooter Vespa, has been properly

appreciated by the Sessions Court in arriving at the guilt of both

the accused for the offence charged. During the arguments,

learned advocate for the appellants took us through the detail

substantive evidence of all the above referred prosecution

witnesses. It is also pointed out to us that these witnesses were

cross-examined their earlier recorded statements when the

matter was initially heard before the JMFC at Pune for the

offence punishable under Sections 363, 384 read with Section

34 of IPC. It is also argued that there is rather deviation from

the said earlier given evidence before the JMFC at Pune and it is

risky to believe their testimonies, further argued. On this aspect,

we have carefully gone through the substantive evidence of

those prosecution witnesses and it must be said that the said

variance in the evidence vis-a-vis given before the JMFC and

evidence given before the Sessions Court is not on the material

particulars of the events. In other words, minor contradictions

9 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

and omissions cannot be treated as negating their entire

evidence when there is no deviation from the main case of the

prosecution mainly on the points as to both the appellants

accused working in the flat of the complainant, victim boy was

found missing from the evening of 24.10.2002 so also both the

appellants-accused were missing from their work, PW No.4

Sneha revealing the missing of her son Sumit and then

contacting her husband Shantaram and contacting Shantaram

who had attended Katraj police chowky for lodging the

complaint and in the meantime PW No.4 Sneha receiving the

telephone call asking for ransom of Rs. 2 lakhs and narrating it

to her husband after attending Katraj police chowky. In fact, this

main case of the prosecution is not shaken in any way though

these witnesses were cross-examined extensively. We have seen

that there is sufficient corroboration to whatever stated by PW

No.4 Sneha, by way of substantive evidence of her husband PW

No.1 Shantaram.

12. During the arguments much emphasis was placed on the

substantive evidence of child witness PW No.5 Sumit. It is

submitted that his evidence cannot be accepted for the reason

that he was of such a tender age so as not to understand the

things properly. In other words, it is argued that said witness

was tutored to give evidence and moreover he had not

10 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

independently identified both the appellants accused. On this

aspect, our attention was drawn towards the answer given by

PW No.5 during his cross-examination which is appearing in

notes of evidence of para No.3 which reads as under :-

"It is true that today when I came to the court

my father pointed out towards accused and told me that those are mason uncles".

13. It is also argued that the necessary requirement as to

ascertaining the understanding capacity of the child witness has

not been fulfilled by the learned trial Judge as there is nothing

on record that in what manner the ability of PW No.5 has been

examined. On this aspect, we have seen that learned Sessions

Judge has made the following observations prior to recording

statement of said PW No.5. Said observations are :-

"After asking some questions to the witness, I feel witness has sufficient understanding. However, age of the witness is

six years and hence I find it proper not to administer oath to him".

14. Though it is fact that learned Sessions Judge had not

specifically mentioned as to which questions he asked to the

child witness to satisfy himself as to understanding capacity of

the child, but equally it cannot be said that there was no attempt

made by the judge to satisfy himself by asking some questions.

11 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

On this aspect it is factual position that at the time of giving the

evidence PW No.5 was six years old and as such at the time of

the incident he was of four years age. The substantive evidence

of this child witness PW No.5 is of much significance and on

carefully going through the same we have perceived that it is

natural evidence and does not appear tutored one. The

substantive evidence of said child witness PW No.5 is

reproduced herein with advantage :-

1. "Vidya was residing in my neighbourhood. Myself

and Vidya used to play. Now Vidya is residing at another place. The work of flooring of our house was started by my father. Mason uncles were doing the said work. Two

masons were doing the said work. Those masons used to talk with me. Those masons used to ask me to sing a song and I used to sing a song.

2. The mason uncle asked me to bring tobacco and by

talking like that he took me on his scooter. Initially, said Gawandi uncles took me to their house. Those mason

uncles are today in the Court. At their house, those mason uncles gave me meal. Then in the night they took me on a hill. While going to the said hill they gave a phone call to somebody. Those mason uncles hided me in

grass. They wrapped a cloth over my mouth and told me that police came and to keep quite. One mason uncle was with me in the said grass. Then police uncles came there. Another mason uncle was with police. Then police took me out first and then to another mason uncle. Then I was

taken to the police station. My father met me there and afterwards my mother also came there. (Witness pointed to the accused persons as sitting by the side of police). Accused No.2 wrapped a cloth around my mouth and he was with me in the said grass. (Witness pointed to the accused No.2 who wrapped the cloth over his mouth who was with him in the grass."

12 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

15. During the cross-examination it was suggested to said

child witness that his father asked him to tell the police that the

appellant-accused took him from his house. However, said

witness had denied this suggestion. Again, during the cross-

examination it is answered by PW No.5 that one lady had served

him the meal and apple and he do not know where she had

gone and that he was with the said lady for the entire day. By

pointing out this answer, it is submitted on behalf of the

appellant that there is no investigation by the police on the

presence or otherwise of said lady as narrated by PW No.5.

Though it is apparently a factual position as not finding

anything in the investigation regarding said lady, this fact in

itself cannot be taken for negating the case of the prosecution.

Further, we have seen that during the cross-examination of said

child witness PW No.5 suggestions were put to him that he was

taking the name of the appellants as taking him away from his

house on that afternoon at the instance of his parents. However,

said witness has stoutly denied all such suggestions. Moreover,

there is an independent corroboration to the testimony of PW

No.5 by way of the substantive evidence of the police officer PW

No.10.

16. At the cost of repetition, it must be mentioned that said

Prakash Jogdand PW No.2 and the appellant accused were

13 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

knowing each other very well and in fact help of said Prakash

Jogdand was taken by the police officer while laying a trap at

Chandni chowk bridge to apprehend the accused persons. It

must be stated that but for the help from PW No.2 Prakash

Jogdand, appellant accused No.1 could not have been

apprehended on that night of the incident as except PW No.2

nobody else in the trap party was knowing said accused.

Moreover, it can be seen that though complainant PW No.1 was

knowing both the appellant-accused, he was not at all in the

trap party. In fact, his presence on the spot along with the police

party would have resulted in different situation as threatened

over phone call.

17. Moreover, the substantive evidence of PW No.7 Ravindra

Patil goes to show that appellant accused No.1 had made a

telephone call from his shop on the relevant night of

24.10.2002. Apparently, his statement was recorded on

31.10.2002 when police knew regarding the venue from where

the telephone call was made and it was learnt by the police after

interrogation of the accused. There is another material available

on record to link the appellants accused with the offence of

kidnapping the child for ransom. As per the substantive evidence

of PW No.4 and also that of PW No.5 Sumit, he was taken away

from his house on a scooter by both the mason uncles i.e. the

14 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

appellants. There is reference of a scooter and in fact there is

corroboration to this circumstance by way of substantive

evidence of PW No.8 Bhaskar Bhavar, owner of the Vespa

scooter. There is another corroboration to this circumstance in

view of the link between the appellant-accused with the Vespa

scooter and this is by way of recovery of the Vespa scooter on

26.10.2002 vide panchnama Exh.38 in which the panch PW

No.9 Sudhakar Pardeshi took part. In fact, it must be observed

that but for the statement from accused No.1 there could not

have been trace of Vespa scooter and consequently the police

machinery could not have reached the real owner of the scooter.

18. At the end of the argument it was tried to point out that

there are many deficiencies in the investigation such as non-

examination of one girl by name Vidya, not producing the

authentic material as to from which telephone number the last

call received at the house of the complainant was made. This

was call giving the details as to how ransom money was to be

given and at which place. It is also brought to our notice that the

investigation is not done on the first call received at the house

of the complainant i.e. call at 2:30 p.m. and second one at 3:15

p.m. So far as evidence of PW No.4 is concerned, there is no

omission brought on record on the aspect as to receipt of the call

at the house of the complainant at about 3:15 p.m. Even police

15 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

officials were also present and that time caller ID instrument

was installed to the telephone line. It must be seen that but for

that call there would not have been scope for the complainant to

know where to deliver the amount as demanded. In any event,

considering the substantive evidence of above referred

prosecution witnesses, mainly of PW Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and

corroborative evidence of PW No.2 Prakash Jogdand, PW No.7

Ravindra Patil i.e owner of the shop and PW No.8 Bhaskar

Bhavar, owner of Vespa scooter, it must be said that the

prosecution has proved the case against both the appellants

beyond reasonable doubt for the offence charged and in that

event there is nothing to interfere in the impugned judgment

and order, so as to view this evidence differently. In the result,

there is no merit in the present appeals and same are disposed

of with the following order.

ORDER.

(1) Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 2005 are dismissed.

(2) Office to communicate this judgment and order

to the appellants who are in jail custody through the concerned jail authority.

(3) Before parting with this judgment, we wish to place on record our appreciation for the way in which Ms Rohini Dandekar, learned appointed advocate appearing for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2005 has

16 /17

judgment in appeal 93-05.doc

conducted the matter. She was thoroughly prepared with the matter and she has very ably argued the matter. We

quantify her fees to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bombay at Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two

Thousand,Five Hundred only). The same to be paid to learned Advocate Ms Rohini Dandekar within two months from today.

(A.R. JOSHI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J)

Ladda R.S.(P.A.)

17 /17