Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 1026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Patil G.D., A.C.J. Tahilramani V.K., J.
Balaso Maruti Kale another .... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1999, decided on 19-9-2002.
Advocates appeared :
Shekhar Ingawale for Ganesh Gole, for appellants.
Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P., for State.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases of criminal offences such as kidnapping.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 364-A - The judgment and order dated 1-4-99 passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 61 of 1998 - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 Anil Kale for the offence punishable under section 364-A I.P.C. and acquitted appellant No. 1 Balaso Kale.
Fact of the Case:
The incident involved the kidnapping of a minor boy, Sanjyot Gajare, who was forcibly taken in a car, confined in a room, and a ransom demand was made. The boy was rescued by his grandfather and the police, leading to the arrest and subsequent trial of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of appellant No. 2 Anil Kale for the offence punishable under section 364-A I.P.C. and confirmed his conviction and sentence. However, the court acquitted appellant No. 1 Balaso Kale due to lack of conclusive evidence connecting him to the crime.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the identification of the appellants, the admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the direct evidence provided by the kidnapped boy, Sanjyot Gajare, and corroborating testimonies of witnesses to establish the guilt of appellant No. 2 Anil Kale. However, the court found that the evidence against appellant No. 1 Balaso Kale was not conclusive, leading to his acquittal.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of appellant No. 2 Anil Kale, while acquitting appellant No. 1 Balaso Kale. The appeal was partly allowed, and the respective orders for imprisonment and release were issued for the appellants.
2. The facts which are evident from the evidence on record, are briefly stated as under :-
The incident took place on 9-4-97 at Hupari, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur. One minor boy viz. Sanjyot Satish Gajare (P.W. 10) was about 9 years old at that time. The said Sanjyots father was the nephew of the complainant Ashok Bhoje (P.W. 7). The father of the said Sanjyot was previously residing at Hupari. However, he shifted to Kagwad (Karnataka State) and therefore, Sanjyot and his sister Nikita were residing with Ashok Bhoje whom he regarded as a grandfather. Sanjyot was studying in an English School at Hupari.
On 9-4-97, as usual, Sanjyot Gajare had left for his school in the morning at about 7.00 a.m. When Sanjyot was near the compound of the school, he was forcibly put in a car by appellant No. 1 Balaso Maruti Kale (original accused No. 1) and appellant No. 2 Anil Maruti Kale (Original accused No. 2). The appellant No. 2 Anil Kale threatened Sanjyot to kill him and Anil Kale was having a knife with him. They took the car in a field. In the field, Sanjyot was taken to one room where his hands and legs were tied with rope. Sanjyot was asked for the phone number of his house and Sanjyot gave the phone number. Thereafter, appellant Balaso Kale left the room and went away in a car. However, appellant No. 2 Anil Maruti Kale remained with Sanjyot inside the room. One adhesive tape was later applied to the mouth and eyes of Sanjyot. They were in the room till evening.
Meanwhile, Ashok Bhoje had been to his shop at 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. and he returned back at about 12.00 to 12.30 p.m. from the shop. Nikita i.e. the sister of Sanjyot returned from school in the afternoon, however, Sanjyot did not return. The complainant-Ashok Bhoje searched for Sanjyot, however, he did not find him and returned back to his house at about 3.00 p.m. Thereafter, he received one telephone call. The person on the phone informed Ashok Bhoje that they have kidnapped Sanjyot Gajare and he asked for ransom amount of Rs. 3 lacs and threatened to kill Sanjyot if the ransom amount is not paid. He also threatened the complainant not to inform to the police. The person on the telephone further informed that he should keep the ransom amount of Rs. 3 lacs ready and he will again give a telephone message as to where the amount is to be paid.
After receiving the said telephone message, Ashok Bhoje narrated this incident to his friends. After discussion with his friends, Ashok Bhoje went to the Police Station and narrated the incident to the Police Officer on duty i.e. P.W. 14 Ashok A. Kalekar. At about the same time, P.S.I. Kalekar had received one telephone call from one Jaykumar Gath (P.W. 8) that one boy is kept in one room in the field adjoining his field. The person on telephone informed that he had heard wailing sound of a boy from that room. Thereafter, Ashok Bhoje, his friends alongwith Police Constable Nivrutti Mayekar (P.W. 11) went towards the house of Jaykumar Gath and alongwith Jaykumar Gath went to the said field. Jaykumar Gath pointed out the room where the boy was confined. When all of them reached near the room, they saw the original accused No. 3 Maruti Kale standing below one tree which was at a distance from the said room. The room was locked from outside. They broke open the lock and entered inside the room. Therein they found the kidnapped boy Sanjyot Gajare. The hands and legs of Sanjyot were tied. An adhesive tape was applied to his mouth and eyes. The appellant No. 2 i.e. original ac
