REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1478 OF 2005

Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar

….. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra

….. Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2006

State of Maharashtra

…. Appellant

Versus

Sanjeevkumar Mahendraprasad Roy and another

…. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J.

INTRODUCTION

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of conviction and

sentence dated 12^th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Bombay in Confirmation Case No.2 of 2004 and three connected appeals;

one filed by the State and two by the accused, whereby and whereunder it

1

confirmed and accepted the reference made to it in terms of Section 366 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the case of Santoshkumar

Satishbhushan Bariyar (appellant in Criminal Case No.1478 of 2005), and

upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the case of the

other accused (respondents in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2006).

Whereas Criminal Appeal No.1478 of 2005 has been preferred by

Santoshkumar Satishbhushan Bariyar (A1) (hereinafter referred to as “the

appellant”), the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2006 praying for

enhancement of sentence for Sanjeevkumar Mahendraprasad Roy (A2) and

Sanotshkumar Shrijailal Roy (A3).

Leave in these matters was granted by this Court by orders dated 28^th

October, 2005 and 17^th April, 2006 respectively.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The facts in brief are that the accused were said to have hatched a

conspiracy to abduct either one Abhijeet Kothari or one Kartikraj (the

deceased) and to demand a ransom of Rs. 10 lacs from the victim’s family.

Kartikraj was the one who was eventually kidnapped. He was working as a

junior clerk in Central Railways at Pune. Ramraj, his father (PW-49) was, at

the relevant time, working as Manager in NABARD, Hyderabad. Santosh

2

Ramraj (PW-50), the younger brother of the deceased was staying with his

father.

Santosh Ramraj received a phone call on 8^th August, 2001 at his

residential telephone number disclosed by the caller, that his brother

Kartikraj was in his custody. Ransom for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was allegedly

demanded. He was threatened that if the said amount was not paid within 24

hours then Kartikraj would be killed. The family of the deceased is said to

have received some more threatening calls thereafter. Ramraj (PW-49), the

father of the deceased also talked to the caller and asked him to give them

time till the next day morning so that he could make arrangements for the

money.

Ramraj (PW-49) thereafter talked to his friend Dattatraya Bhandange

(PW-2) who, at the relevant time, was working as Manger in NABARD,

Pune. Bhandange (PW-2) did his best to trace out Kartikraj but failed in his

attempts.

A draft of the First Information Report was faxed by Ramraj to

Bhandange’s (PW-2)’s Pune office, requesting him to lodge the same at the

concerned Police Station. A photograph of Kartikraj was also sent along.

3

Pursuant thereto, a First Information Report was lodged for offences

punishable under Sections 363 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. The

investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch. Santoshraj (PW-2)

informed the Investigating Officer, API Lotlikar on telephone that he had

again received a phone call from the kidnappers, asking him to come to

Bombay with Rs.10 lacs and a mobile phone. To this API Lotlikar asked

him to inform the caller that instead of going himself, he would be sending a

friend of his to Bombay with the money. He told him to tell to the caller that

the friend’s name was Sham Naidu and that his mobile number was

9822******. Santoshraj acted accordingly. Kidnappers thereafter started

calling API Lotlikar on his mobile phone thinking him to be Sham Naidu.

Thus, keeping the kidnappers engaged in one conversation or the other, a

trap was laid for them at Ju