SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(AP) 517

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
Mayank Bohra – Appellant
Versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2006
Decided on : 03-08-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :K. Suresh Reddy, Advocate.
For The Respondent: Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 397, 364-A, 307 and 506 Part II r/w Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959-Murder, attempt to murder and robbery-Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching core of case-Testimony of injured witness that she sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to her testimony that she was present during course of occurrence-Conviction for offences under IPC affirmed-However, no evidence to show that weapon is in serviceable condition-Conviction u/s 25 (IB) (1) of Arms Act cannot be sustained-Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 10, 12 to 17)

       

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal is against the judgment convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 397, 364-A, 307, 506-Part II of IPC and 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act (!) . - The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and kidnapping for ransom, among other offences (!) . - The prosecution's case involved a planned kidnapping and ransom attempt influenced by crime movies (!) . - The victim, Dulichand Surana, was abducted and subsequently killed, while his wife, Manju Surana (PW.2), was also injured (!) . - PW.2 Manju Surana is an injured witness whose testimony is corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence (!) (!) . - The court noted that minor discrepancies on trivial matters do not affect the core of the case, and the testimony of an injured witness lends support to their presence during the occurrence (!) . - The appellant's conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act was not sustained due to a lack of evidence proving the weapon was in a serviceable condition (!) (!) . - The court found it difficult to give authenticity to the reports of scientific officers regarding handwriting and fingerprints due to procedural gaps in their collection (!) . - The conviction and sentence for offences under IPC sections 302, 397, 364-A, 307, and 506-Part II were confirmed (!) . - The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under the Arms Act (!) .

What is the legal validity of convictions under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act when the firearm's serviceable condition is not proven?

What is the evidentiary value of an injured witness's testimony when there are minor discrepancies?

What are the implications of taking specimen fingerprints and handwriting samples without a magistrate's order?


Judgment :-

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.


This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.206 of 2002 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge found A1-Mayank Bohra guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 397, 364-A, 307, 506-Part II of IPC and 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC; life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- for the offence under Section 364-A IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 307 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 397 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 506-Part II IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act while recording acquittal of A2 Khurminal Doungel alias Boon for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act.


2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is:


(a) A1-Mayank Bohra imbibed ambition to become rich by hook or crook. He got influenced by crime movies, more particularly, English movie viz., KNR (Kidnap and Ransom). He secured a Maruti Van bearing No.AP 9 Q 7374 and changed its number plate as WB-20-7301, purchased a toy pistol, four knives, plastic rope bundles, gloves, binoculars, masks, wigs etc. He took a flat in Sai Praveen Kuteer, Methodist Colony, Begumpet, to carry on his operation. He targeted Dulichand Surana to extract money from him. It appears once ULFAs at Assam kidnapped PW.1 Dinesh Surana son of Dulichand Surana and thereupon Dulichand Surana paid Rs.1.00 Crore to get his son PW.1 Dinesh Surana released. PW.1 Dinesh Surana and PW.3 Rajesh Surana are twins and they are sons of Dulichand Surana and PW.2 Manju Surana. They were to celebrate their birthday function as well as New Year day on the night of 31.12.2001 at Hotel Taj Krishna, Banjara Hills. They reside in Srinath Complex, S.D.Road, Secunderabad. Dulichand Surana and his wife-PW2 Manju Surana left their residence in a Santro car bearing No.AP 28 5001 at about 10.00 or 10.30 P.M. to Hotel Taj Krishna, Banjara Hills. PW.1 Dinesh Surana, PW.3 Rajesh Surana, PW.4 Narayana Agarwal and other family members were to come by a Qualis to Hotel Taj Krishna. Dulichand Surana was on driving seat of Santro car and whereas his wife PW.2 Manju Surana was by his side. On reaching Automic Mineral Development Office, Begumpet, A1 Mayank Bohra who had come there arrived there on his white Maruti Van, stopped the Santro car driven by Dulichand Surana. A1 got into the Santro car and took a rear seat, pointed a pistol on temple of Dulichand Surana and directed him to move the car. In the meanwhile, PW.1 Dinesh Surana, PW.3 Rajesh Surana and other family members reached near Automic Mineral Development Office and found the Santro car stationed there. PW.1 Dinesh Surana got down from Qualis and tried to reach the Santro Car. Finding PW.1 Dinesh Surana coming near the Santro car, Dulichand Surana shouted at him to run away. A1 directed Dulichand Surana to drive the Santro car towards flyover and after getting down the flyover, made him to stop the car on left side in a lane near Blue Moon Hotel. A1 tied the hands of Dulichand Surana and his wife PW.2 Manju Surana and made them to sit on back seat. He drove the Santro car upto Amruta Mall and then took a turn and reached a secluded place at Mahindra Hills, where road was upgradient. He demanded Dulichand Surana to pay Rs.2.00 Crores otherwise he would kill him and his wife. Dulichand Surana pleaded his incapacity to arrange such a huge sum. However, he agreed to secure Rs.10.00 Lakhs within two hours. He closed the nostrils of Dulichand Surana and hacked him with a knife on face, chest, abdomen and thighs. PW.2 Manju Surana pleaded him to leave her husband Dulichand Surana. She offer



















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top