Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.M. DESHPANDE, AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
Atul S/o Anantrao Kate – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 16 of 2018
Decided on : 26-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. K. Bhangde
For the Respondent: S. S. Doifode

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the essential elements of criminal offences, emphasizing the importance of meeting the evidentiary standards set forth in the law.

Headnote:
Kidnapping - Indian Penal Code - 363, 364-A - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the essential ingredients of the offences under section 363 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. It highlighted the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements and electronic evidence, and emphasized the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the essential elements of the offences. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of proof of certain essential ingredients, leading to the acquittal of the accused under section 364-A while confirming the conviction under section 363.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, a friend of the victim's husband, took the victim's minor daughter without consent, demanded ransom, and was subsequently arrested at a railway station with the minor daughter.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping under section 363 but acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 364-A due to lack of proof of essential ingredients.
Issues: The issues revolved around the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offences under section 363 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of admissible evidence to prove certain essential ingredients of the offence under section 364-A, leading to the acquittal of the accused under that section.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed, confirming the conviction under section 363 while quashing the conviction under section 364-A, leading to the acquittal of the accused under that section.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

By this appeal, accused No. 1 challenges judgment and order dated 4-12-2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 412/2014, whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced in the manner stated herein below :-

(i) Under section 364-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

(ii) Under section 363 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The prosecution case in short is as under :-

Sau. Vandana Manoj Vairagade (PW1) lodged report with Police Station Ajni, Nagpur on 27-6-2014 (Exh.26) alleging that accused No. 1/appellant is good friend of her husband- Manoj Vairagade (PW5), as they were classmates at Nagpur. Accused No. 1-Atul Kate is husband of accused No. 2-Vishakha Kate and both are residing at Goa. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to Nagpur before 15 days prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that on 24.06.2014, accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been to the house of Vandana (PW1) and Manoj (PW5) for dinner. Thereafter again on 27-6-2014 at 2 p.m., accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been to the house of Vandana (PW1) and Manoj (PW5). On that day accused Nos. 1 and 2 requested Vandana (PW1) to allow her 10 month old daughter – Shrushti for joy ride. Inspite of resistance of Vandana (PW1), accused Nos. 1 and 2 took minor child- Shrushti with them for purchase of clothes and eatables and left the house of Vandana (PW1). Accused Nos. 1 and 2 failed to come back even after lapse of considerable time. Therefore, Vandana (PW1) contacted her husband- Manoj (PW5) at 4.35 p.m. but, Manoj (PW5) failed to receive the said call. Thereafter, Manoj (PW5) called back Vandana (PW1). She disclosed the incident of taking daughter-Shrushti by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Manoj (PW5) therefore, rushed to his home and tried to search accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with his minor daughter Shrushti. It is alleged that Vandana (PW1) and Manoj (PW5) tried to contact accused Nos. 1 and 2 on their cell phones but, cell phones of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were switched off. Vandana (PW1) therefore, lodged report with Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur on 27-6-2014, which was registered as Crime No. 196/2014 under sections 363 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On the basis of oral report lodged by Vandana (PW1), Bajrangsingh Salunke (PW14), Police Inspector, deputed teams of police personnel to search minor girl- Shrushti and accused Nos. 1 and 2. On 29-6-2014, at about 9 a.m., Prakash Ghodge (PW11), Police Constable, who was on duty at Dhamangaon Railway Station, while inspecting Gondwana Express at Dhamangaon had suspicion on one male and female carrying one boy aged 12 years and one girl aged 10 months. Prakash Ghodge (PW11) enquired with them and got to know their names are Atul Kate and Vishakha Kate. Prakash Ghodge (PW11) searched accused No. 1- Atul Kate and found an amount of Rs. 23,722/- along with one SIM card of Airtel Company and ATM card of Union Bank of India in his possession. Prakash Godge (PW11) forwarded the said information to Gajendrasingh Parihar (PW12), who was working as Police Sub-Inspector, R.P. F. Pulgaon. He seized articles i.e. cash, ATM card and SIM card in presence of panch- Prasana Mundada (PW10) and one Rajesh Deotale. Bajarangsingh Salunke (PW14), Police Inspector of Ajni Police Station, Nagpur recorded statement of Manoj (PW5). On 29.06.2017, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested by preparing arrest panchnama (Exh.17) at Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur. Police carried out the investigation. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and also took print-out of the messages from cell phone of Manoj (PW5) allegedly sent by accused- Atul Kate and seized cell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYV.M. DESHPANDE, AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.Atul S/o Anantrao Kate – AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra – RespondentCri. Appeal No. 16 of 2018Decided on : 26-07-2021

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for admissible evidence to prove the essential elements of criminal offences, emphasizing the importance of meeting the evidentiary standards set forth in the law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.M. DESHPANDE, AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
Atul S/o Anantrao Kate – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 16 of 2018
Decided on : 26-07-2021