Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
Laxmikant Mahadeo Pendam – Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147, 134 OF 2006 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.6365 OF 2017 AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.134 OF 2006
Decided On : 24-11-2017
For the Appellant :P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. S.S. Raut, APP
The judgment emphasizes the importance of strong and dependable evidence in establishing guilt, even in the absence of admissible electronic records.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Indian Penal Code - Section 363 - 34, 65-B - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Accused nos.1 and 2 kidnapped the daughters of the informant from their school on the pretext of their mother meeting with an accident. The accused demanded ransom from the informant, but the daughters were safely returned home. The accused were charged under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 364-A. Instead, the accused were convicted for the offence of kidnapping under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The court analyzed the evidence of the witnesses, the conduct of the accused, and the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping under Section 363 based on strong and dependable evidence from witnesses, despite the inadmissibility of electronic records due to the lack of a Section 65-B certificate.
Final Decision: The accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 364-A and instead convicted under Section 363. They were sentenced to the period already undergone and fined Rs.25,000 each, with default stipulation.
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.
Criminal Appeal Nos.147 of 2006 and 134 of 2006 have been preferred by accused nos.1 and 2 respectively assailing the judgment and order dated 06.02.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.194 of 2004 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, whereby they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.”, for short) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with default stipulation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants, hereinafter, would be referred to as accused no.1 and accused no.2.
3. The informant namely, Nishikant Mangesh Kakade, r/o. Vikas Colony, Bhusawal was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India at Bhusawal in the year 2004. His daughters namely, Janhavi and Vaishnavi, aged about 11 years and 7 years, respectively, were studying in St. Aloysius Marathi Primary School, at Bhusawal, in 6th standard and 2nd standard, respectively. Their school hours were from 7.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. An auto-rickshaw was engaged to facilitate them to attend the school.
4. On 18.06.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., when the informant went back to his house, his wife namely, Manisha informed that on that day at about 1.30 p.m., a boy aged about 20 to 22 years, having blackish complexion and who had worn a jeans pant and Tshirt, had been to their house to collect information of their daughters namely, Janhavi and Vaishnavi, on the say that the said information was necessary for drawing their insurance policies. However, she did not furnish any information to him. The said boy asked for drinking water. When she went to another room to bring water, the said boy asked the names of the daughters, who were in the front-side room. After drinking water, that boy went away.
5. On 22.06.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., Janhavi and Vaishnavi went to their school by an auto-rickshaw. The informant also attended his office at about 10.30 a.m. When he was sitting inside his cabin, a boy of the above-mentioned description came there at about 1.00 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. and asked the informant, whether he had received any phone call. When the informant answered him in the negative and further asked as to who had proposed to call him on phone, the said boy answered that he wanted to open a new account and went away.
6. Then at about 2.15 p.m., the wife of the informant phoned him and informed that Janhavi and Vaishnavi had not come back from the school and the rickshaw driver told her that somebody had taken away both of the daughters from the school.
7. The informant then started to go to the school. At that time, an unknown person called him through mobile no.9822876909 and informed him that both the daughters were with him and demanded Rs.25,00,000/. He further informed that he would call after sometime and ended the call.
8. The informant went to the school to inquire about his daughters, whereon the Headmistress of the school informed him that sometime prior to the end of the school hours, two boys aged 20 to 22 years gave a written application informing that the mother of Janhavi and Vaishnavi had met with an accident and therefore, they wanted to take Janhavi and Vaishnavi to their house. After receiving that application, both the girls were given in the custody of those two boys. Both of them took away the two girls with them.
9. Thereafter, the informant went back to his bank. He then received three phone calls from a person with the intervals of 15 to 20 minutes from phone no.02582225826 asking him whether he had arranged for money and informing that his daughters were safe with him. The informant expressed his inability to arrange for the amount demanded and on being asked by that person, stated that he had arranged for Rs.50,000/-. The informant then asked that person as to where he should hand over that amount. The said person then told the informant that he would come to the bank and take away the amou
