The conviction under Sections 364A and 386 IPC was upheld based on compelling eyewitness testimony and established elements of kidnapping for ransom.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. The Appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 7^th February 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane in Sessions Case No.248 of 2014. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 364A and 386 of the Indian Penal Code, (‘IPC’) 1860. For the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which suffer rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 386 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI for five years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to suffer one month of RI. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. He is also held entitled for set off for the period of detention already undergone. The Appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(c)(1-a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 37(1) 135 of theBombay Police Act, 1951. The said acquittal is on account of absence of the sanction to prosecute him under the Arms Act or any order of the Police Commissioner under the Bombay Police Act being placed on record. There were two other accused in the said offence, one of whom was absconding and the other, a juvenile in conflict with the law and hence, tried separately under the provisions of law, as applicable.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 The Dangi family comprising of several cousins and uncles were working in a power loom in Mumbai. Some of them were residing at Narayan Compound, Kanher, Bhiwandi. They used to take their meals in ‘Mangal Bhavan’ i.e. the house of their aunt.

2.2 On 20^th November 2013, the complainant, Uday Baldeo Dangi (PW/1) had been to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ to have dinner. At that time, Pankajkumar Govind Dangi (PW/3) and Vikaskumar Sitaram Dangi (PW/4) were working in the power loom. After some time, both PW/3 and PW/4 came to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ to have dinner while the complainant returned to the power loom. Thereafter, the complainant received a phone call from Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), the third victim, informing him that some rogue persons had taken him along with Vikaskumar and Pankajkumar at knife/gunpoint. They rushed to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ where their aunt informed the complainant that the kidnappers were demanding Rs.15,000/- for the release of the victims. One of the kidnappers directed the complainant to bring the ransom of Rs.15,000/- immediately at the Hotel Sagar Plaza, Nagaon Road, Shantinagar, failing which all the three victims would be killed.

2.3 The complainant (PW/1) went to the Bhiwandi City Police Station and lodged the complaint. The police registered an FIR vide C.R.No.232 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A , 386 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act . Thereafter, the police arranged a trap. The complainant brought Rs.4,000/- to be used in the trap. The trap party went near Hotel Sagar Plaza and the complainant received the call of the kidnappers on his mobile phone. When two persons came near the Hotel Sagar Plaza to collect the money, the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- to them and signaled the police. Immediately, the said persons were accosted. They stated their names and one of them was the Appellant. On a personal search, a revolver and a knife were found on their persons. These articles were seized under Panchnama. Statements of witnesses were recorded. So also, the complainant recorded his supplementary statement. On 30^th January 2014, the revolver along with four live cartridges were sent to the ballistic expert for analysis. The Appellant did not have a license to possess the revolver. Accordingly, after the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the Appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joint Court, Bhiwandi, which was committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Thane.

2.4 Charges were framed against the Appell