Point of Law: Child witness - child witnesses were detained at the police station and, therefore, the court had observed that they were tutored by the police.

JUDGMENT :

SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

1. All these three Appeals are decided by this common Judgment because they arise out of the same trial. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants are referred to by their original status as accused in the trial court.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 2013 is preferred by the accused No. 1 Sandeep Kamble. Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2013 is preferred by the Accused No. 2 Nitin Samudre and Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2013 is preferred by Accused No. 3 Bharat Kamble and accused No. 4 Vimal Kamble. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers. Accused No. 4 is their mother and accused No. 2 is friend of accused No. 1.

3. The Appellants have challenged the Judgment and order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 564 of 2010. By the impugned Judgment and order the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for commission of the offence punishable under sections 364-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three years. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 363 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to under S.I. for one and half years. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 384 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC but no sentence was imposed on them under this section.

4. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 414 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for six months. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. All the accused were given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were acquitted from the charges of commission of offence punishable under sections 363, 364-A, 384 and 120-B of IPC.

5. The prosecution case is that, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 abducted five and half years old boy named Atharva from Raja Shivaji Nagar, Chinchwad, in the morning of 09.04.2010 in an Indica car. Phone calls were made to Atharva's mother Bhagyashri on a few occasions and Rs. 15 lakhs were demanded as ransom for release of Atharva. Bhagyashri could arrange Rs. 6 lakhs. She was asked to board a local train and to throw the bag containing money at a particular spot. In the meantime, police were informed by BhagyaShri A tracking devise was kept in the bag. The money was traced to the house of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The bundles of currency notes, of which some of the notes were marked, were traced in that house. Cash of Rs. 5,85,000/- was recovered. The investigation was carried out. All the accused were arrested. In the meantime, the boy came home at about 7.45 p.m. on 12.04.2010. After the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the court of sessions. During trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The defence of the accused was of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge passed impugned Judgment and order.

6. We have heard Ms. Anjali Patil, learned counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No. 744/2013, Shri Khamkar, learned counsel for the Appellants in Appeal Nos. 186/2013 and 795/2013 and Ms. G.P. Mulekar, learned APP for the State/Respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the accused Nos. 3 and 4 submitted that, they are acquitted from the charges of commission of major offences. The only charge proved against them was of concealing stolen property, but the cash amount was recovered from the house which was