Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra

1. The Appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 7th 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 the Bombay 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 20th 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 30th 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 Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 386 of the IPC and under Section 25(1)(c)(1-a) of the Arms Act and 37(1) 135 of the Bombay Police Act on 26th November 2014. The Appellant entered his plea of not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.[5] In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The defence did not lead any evidence. The statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The defence of the Appellant was that of total denial, innocence and false implication. However, the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane vide his Judgment and Order dated 7th February 2017, convicted the Appellant and sentenced him as noted in paragraph 1 above.

3. Mr. B.A. Lawate, learned counsel represented the Appellant and Mr. Aashish Satpute, learned APP represented the State.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence i.e three eye witnesses, who are the victims of the offence themselves. According to the prosecution, the three victims namely, Pankajkumar (PW/3), Ramesh (PW/6) and Vikaskumar (PW/4) were abducted and their relatives including the complainant (PW/1) received threatening calls. The Appellant called the complainant (PW/1) from the mobile of the victim (PW/6) and demanded a ransom of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to them at a designated place i.e. at the Hotel Sagar Plaza. The complainant was threatened with death of the victims on failure to deliver the ransom amount. Thereafter, the police laid a trap. Rs.4,000/- was brought by the complainant in denominations of Rs.500/- notes, numbers of which were noted by the police. The said amount was carried by the complainant to the Hotel Sagar Plaza, as an exchange for the victims. The Appellant and his accomplices who came to collect the money were accosted by the police on a signal given by the complainant. Rs.4,000/- which was handed over to the Appellant was recovered and found to be the same notes, numbers of which were recorded by the police. The victims themselves have deposed before the Court narrating their ordeal and have identified the Appellant. Hence, according to the prosecution, the substantive evidence led by the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the commission of the offences for which the Appellant is convicted beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Mr. Lawate outlined the defence. He says that firstly, there is no clarity as to the mode of transport which was used by the abductors to abduct the victims. Mr. Lawate pointed out that while PW/3 stated that they were abducted in an auto, PW/6 said that they were abducted in a tempo. According to Mr. Lawate, this is a major contradiction in the story of the two victims themselves. He also argues that the statement of rickshaw/tempo driver was not recorded and neither is there any substantive evidence in respect of the same. Secondly, he says that the mobile phone of Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), one of the victims was used to call the complainant to demand ransom. This mobile phone was not recovered by the police. Thirdly, Mr. Lawate argues that the Spot Panchnama of seizing the amount of ransom paid of Rs.4,000/- was prepared in police station. He thus, contends that the prosecution has not proved the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and hence, urges the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the conviction.

6. Per contra, Mr. Satpute, learned APP has taken us through the testimony of all the seven witnesses. He submits that the victims, themselves, have narrated their ordeal by giving their testimonies in the Court; the currency notes which were exchanged at Hotel Sagar Plaza when compared with the numbers on the currency notes jotted down by the police at the police station are the same. The Appellant and his accomplice were apprehended at the spot by the police in the act of exchange of money. According to him, all these acts are proved by cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, the case against the Appellant is water tight and proved beyond reasonable doubt. He prays that the Appeal should be dismissed.

7. The law is settled in cases where the injured witness himself testifies. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhatisgarh[1] has dealt with the importance of the deposition of an injured witness. It is held that unless there are compelling circumstances, or evidence placed by the defence to doubt the testimony of the victims of the crime, this evidence has to be accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial. The importance of such injured witness cannot be overstated. The Apex Court has referred to the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra[2], where the Supreme Court summed up the principles to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eye 1 [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40 witness, which read as under:

8. Further having regard to the legal position pertaining to the scope and purport of Section 364A of the IPC, a case that requires notice is a Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in Vikram Singh v. Union of India[3]. In this case, the Apex Court elaborately considered the scope and purport of Section 364A of the IPC including its historical background. After noticing earlier cases, the Apex Court laid down that Section 364A of the IPC has three distinct components. In paragraph 25, the following was laid down with regard to distinct components of Section 364A: (SCC pp 522-23) “25.…..Section 364-A IPC has three distinct components viz.

(i) The person concerned kidnaps or abducts or keeps the victims in detention after kidnapping or abduction; (ii) threatens to cause death or hurt or causes apprehension of death or hurt or actually hurts or causes death; and (iii) the kidnapping, abduction or detention and the threats of death or hurt, apprehension for such death or hurt or actual death or hurt is caused to coerce the person concerned or someone else to do something or to forebear from doing something or to pay ransom.”

9. In the case in hand, the complainant (PW/1) has narrated that he received a phone call from the victim Ramesh Dangi (PW/6). He also received a call from his aunt informing him that the Appellant has demanded 15,000/- for the release of the victims failing which, they would be killed. He has narrated regarding the trap that was arranged by the police with panchas in tow. The complainant himself along with the police and panchas went in a private vehicle near the Hotel Sagar Plaza. This witness specifically deposed that he received a phone call from the Appellant and he informed him that he was on the way and was bringing the amount demanded by the Appellant. He signaled the police when he saw the Appellant with Ramesh Dangi (PW/6). The Appellant had a knife and the police apprehended him when the amount was exchanged in the presence of this witness. The Appellant disclosed the identity of the other accused and also took the police to the place where they were waiting. One of the accused had a revolver and tried to run away but the police caught him. Two knives, revolver and four live cartridges along with Rs.4,000/- which was given by this witness were seized and a Panchnama was drawn up. This witness clearly identified the Appellant in Court and also stated that the Panchnama was prepared in his presence. In his crossexamination, nothing material is elicited. Although he could not remember the registration number of the private vehicle by which he traveled to the designated place, the same is not of any material consequence. There is nothing to doubt the statement of this witness.

10. Mr. Anil Kesarwani (PW/2) is the panch witness to the trap arranged by the police. He identified the Appellant and deposed as to the entire sequence of events that transpired from the time they started from the police station till the accused persons including the Appellant were apprehended. Mr. Lawate tried to raise some doubts regarding the recording of the Panchnama as this witness stated in his cross-examination that the Panchnama at Exhibit 13 was written in the police station. We have gone through the said Panchnama. It is in respect of the trap set up by the police and related to the amount seized. The Panchnama records the numbers of currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, that were recorded by the police earlier. The comparison of the numbers on the notes was done in the police station and hence, in this context the panchnama was recorded in the police station. Nothing of consequence turns on this. The testimony of this witness inspires confidence and there is nothing more in the crossexamination to doubt his statement.