The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and kidnapping for ransom. Ruling that the prosecution proved a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, the court held the appellant guilty.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2011
Abhishek Virendra Dubey
Adult, Indian Inhabitant, aged about 21 years, Occ. Nil, Residing at B-7, Saibabanagar Chawl, Mashachapada Road, Opp. St. Xaviers High School, Kashimira, Thane.
Originally residing at Shanusunkara, Post Shanti, Tal. Rathunathpur, Dist. Shivan, Bihar. .. Appellant
(Org. Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Kashimira Police Station C.R. No. I-19/2007) .. Respondent
Appearances Mr. Priyatosh Tiwari i/by Mr. A.M. Saraogi Advocate for the Appellant Mr. H.J. Dedia APP for the State
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 16 & 17, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
accused against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2011
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No. 244 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default S.I. for three months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364A of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default S.I. for three months. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
houses of each other. PW 1 Suresh is the first informant in the present case. PW 6 Seema was the wife of PW 1 Suresh. The appellant was the son of brother-in-law of PW 1 Suresh i.e the appellant was the son of the real brother of the wife of PW 1 Suresh.
was the youngest. He was six years old at the time of the incident. Anishkumar used to go for tuition to the house of PW 1 Suresh and Seema. He used to attend tuition classes along with some other children. PW 2 Ravindra Vaity used to give tuition to the children. The tuition timings were
between 7.00 to 8.30 p.m.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
resided with PW 1 Suresh for a period of 5-6 months. PW 1 Suresh could not find a job for the appellant, hence, he informed his brother-in-law that he is sending the appellant back to his home for doing a computer course. The appellant completed his computer course and about 1 & 1/2 months prior to the incident, he came to the house of PW 1 Suresh from his native place. PW 1 Suresh then got employment for the appellant with Doshi Industries on a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-.
PW 1 Suresh had prepared a tiffin for the appellant and gave it to him but the appellant told her that he did not want the tiffin as he had left the job. At that time, PW 1 Suresh was present there. PW 1 Suresh asked the appellant whether
he had found any other job but the appellant did
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
not give any reply to Suresh. Suresh then angrily told the appellant that he cannot do anything here, hence, the appellant should go back to his native place. The appellant then told Suresh that he would go back to his native place on 4.2.2007. Then Suresh in anger told the appellant why he was going on 4th and he should go just now. The appellant was then leaving the house whereupon Suresh asked the appellant where he was going. The appellant told Suresh that his sheth i.e his employer had called him. After that the appellant left the house.
(e) On the next day i.e on 1.2.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., the appellant was watching television in the house of PW 5 Rita Kapildev Tiwari. At about 8.30 p.m., Anishkumar, after the tuition class was over, kept the school bag in the house of his aunt PW 5 Rita. Thereafter, the appellant told PW 5 Rita
jfoanz vkacsjdj 5
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
that he would take Anishkumar and bring him back after giving him an ice cream. After that the appellant took Anishkumar with him from the house of PW 5 Rita, however, thereafter Anishkumar did not come back. Therefore, the parents of Anishkumar and his uncle, aunts and other relatives started searching for Anishkumar,
however, Anishkumar could not be traced. Then PW 4 Achaldeo, the father of Anishkumar lodged missing complaint which is at Exh. 64.
(f) On the same day at about 9.45 p.m., PW 1 Suresh received a phone call on his Tata Indicom phone No. 65735510. The phone call was made from Phone No. 28454640. The caller told Suresh that he should keep an amount of Rs. Ten Lacs ready by tomorrow evening failing which Anishkumar would be no more. PW 1 Suresh felt that the voice was resembling the voice of the appellant.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 6
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
Suresh was well acquainted with the voice of the appellant as the appellant was residing with him since a few months. PW 1 Suresh called PW 4 Achaldeo and informed him that he received a phone call from Phone No. 28454640 on his landline and caller had demanded a ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs which was to be delivered by the evening of the next day and if the amount was not paid, Anishkumar would not remain alive. Suresh then went to Kashimira Police Station and informed the police about the demand of ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs. He also gave the phone number of the caller and his own phone number on which he had received the call. Accordingly, he lodged complaint Exh. 51.
(g) On 2.2.2007, Achaldeo received a phone call from Kashimira Police Station. He was informed that a dead body of a boy was found by Bhayander
jfoanz vkacsjdj 7
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
Police. On reaching there, he saw the dead body of his son was kept on the stretcher. He identified the body body as that of his son Anishkumar. Achaldeo informed his brother PW 1 Suresh that Anishkumar was murdered by someone. Suresh then went near Mira Road Railway Station and he saw the dead body of Anishkumar. Soon thereafter, Suresh received a phone call from his wife (PW 6 Seema) that the appellant was making preparation to go to his native place hurriedly, therefore, PW 1 Suresh became suspicious. Suresh thought that when the appellant was to go back to his native place on 4.2.2007, then why the appellant was suddenly making preparation to go to his native place hurriedly. Suresh then informed the police about the same. The police then came to the house of Suresh and apprehended the appellant. During the course of investigation, police found that the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 8
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
telephone number from which call was made to PW 1 Suresh belonged to PW 3 Nagnath Thombre who was running a PCO booth, hence, the statement of PW 3 Nagnath Thombre came to be recorded. During the investigation, it was further revealed that the appellant had taken Anishkumar to the ice cream cart of PW 7 Vishnu Teli, hence,
the statement of PW 7 Vishnu Teli was recorded. Both PW 3 Nagnath Thombre and PW 7 Vishnu Teli were called to attend test identification parade on 6.3.2007 In the test identification parade, PW 3 Nagnath and PW 7 Vishnu both identified the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.
tried. His defence was that of total denial and false
jfoanz vkacsjdj 9
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence.
and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant kidnapped Anishkumar for ransom and thereafter committed his murder.
the possibility of any other person committing the offence.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 10
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
The circumstances are as under:-
jfoanz vkacsjdj 11
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
jfoanz vkacsjdj 12
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
the elder brothers of her husband. Deceased Anishkumar was the son of PW 4 Achaldeo. Anishkumar was six years old at the time of the incident. She knew the appellant as he was the relative of her brother-in-law PW 1 Suresh Tiwari. The appellant was residing in the house of PW 1 Suresh Tiwari. During the period that the appellant was residing in the house of PW 1 Suresh Tiwari, he used to go to the house of Rita. Rita has further stated that on 1.2.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., the appellant was watching television in her house. The appellant kept on coming and going out of her house. At about 8.30 p.m., Anishkumar came to her house after his tuition was over. Thereafter, the appellant told Rita that he would take Anishkumar and bring him back after giving him an ice cream. The appellant took Anishkumar with him in the presence of Rita. Sometime thereafter, the mother of Anishkumar came to the house of Rita. She asked about Anishkumar. Rita told her that the appellant took Anishkumar with him to give him an ice cream. Thereafter, all of them started searching for Anishkumar but Anishkumar
jfoanz vkacsjdj 13
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
could not be found. The appellant was returning back to the house of PW 1 Suresh Tiwari at about 10.30 p.m. PW 5 Rita asked the appellant where is Anishkumar. The appellant told her that he did not know about Anishkumar. Thereafter, the appellant went to the house of PW 1 Suresh Tiwari.
of PW 5 Rita. Seema has stated that the appellant was her nephew i.e son of her real brother. On 1.2.2007, the appellant told her that he was going to the house of Rita aunty (PW 5) for watching T.V. At about 7.00 p.m., Anishkumar had come to the house of Seema for tuition. The tuition was over at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter Anishkumar left the house of Seema. At about 8.45 p.m., the mother of Anishkumar came to her house and inquired about the whereabouts of Anishkumar. Thereupon, Seema told her that Anishkumar had left her house. Then they went to the house of Rita Kapildev Tiwari (PW 5). Rita told them that the appellant had taken Anishkumar from her house to give him
jfoanz vkacsjdj 14
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
an ice cream. Rita further told Seema that she had objected
to the appellant taking Anishkumar for eating ice cream but
the appellant did not listen to her and took Anishkumar with
him.
has stated that Anishkumar was her son. He was about six
years old at the time of the incident. On 1.2.2007, her son Anishkumar along with other children had gone for tuition in
the house of Suresh Tiwari (PW 1). The tuition was over at
8.30 p.m. As usual, PW 8 Rita Achaldeo Tiwari had gone to
the house of PW 5 Rita Kapildev Tiwari at about 8.45 p.m. She noticed that Anishkumar was not present. Then she asked PW 5 Rita Kapildev Tiwari where is Anishkumar. PW 5 Rita told her that the appellant had taken Anishkumar with him for eating ice cream. After that Anishkumar was not
found.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 15
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
9. PW 7 Vishnu Teli was doing business of selling ice
cream from the year 2004. He used to sell ice cream from his hand cart. He used to park his ice cream hand cart in front of Green View Complex, Mashachapada Road, Kashimira. As he was doing the business of selling ice cream since 2004, he knew the children of that area by face. PW 7
Vishnu Teli has stated that on 1.2.2007 as usual, he had started business of selling ice cream in front of Green View Complex. At about 11.00 p.m., he came to know that one boy from that area was missing. The residents of that area showed him a photo of a small boy. He identified the photo as the photograph of a boy of that area. He then told the residents that the small boy whose photograph was shown to him came to his ice cream cart in between 8.30 p.m. to 8.45 p.m along with a boy of 20-21 years of age. The boy had worn green colour shirt and light green colour pant. He had squint in one eye. That boy of 20-21 years of age
purchased ice cream for the small boy. That boy paid him Rs. 20/-. Then Vishnu Teli deducted Rs. 5/- towards the cost
jfoanz vkacsjdj 16
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
of ice cream and returned Rs. 15/- to the boy of 20-21 years of age. Thereafter, both of them went towards Jarimari Talao. Vishnu Teli has further stated that in test identification parade held on 6.2.2007, he identified the appellant as the same boy who had come to his ice cream cart with Anishkumar on 1.2.2007 at 8.30 to 8.45 p.m.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the evidence of PW 7 Vishnu Teli cannot be relied upon because his evidence that the appellant had come to his ice cream cart with a small boy (Anishkumar) and the appellant purchased ice cream for that small boy is an improvement. However, on going through the statement of PW 7 Vishnu Teli, we find that all these facts are in fact stated by him in
his statement. Thus, we find no merit in this submission.
the appellant/accused has to explain when and where he
jfoanz vkacsjdj 17
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
parted company from deceased and how the deceased sustained injuries and died. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the
Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principles which underlies Section 106 of
the Evidence Act can be applied in cases of 'Last Seen'. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram1 , the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always
upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the
1 (2006)12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144
jfoanz vkacsjdj 18
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain.
brothers namely PW 4 Achaldeo, Bhigunath and Kapildev. They were all residing near to each other. His brother Achaldeo had two sons and two daughters. One of the sons was Anishkumar who was about six years old at the time of the incident. Anishkumar used to come to the house of PW 1 Suresh for taking tuition. The timing of the tuition was from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. On 1.2.2007, Anishkumar had come
to his house as usual for taking tuition. After the tuition was over, Anishkumar left the house of Suresh Tiwari. Thereafter, Anishkumar did not reach his house. After that Achaldeo came to the house of Suresh Tiwari and made enquiry about Anishkumar. Suresh told him that Anishkumar
jfoanz vkacsjdj 19
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
had left his house. They searched for Anishkumar but he was not found. Suresh Tiwari told Achaldeo to go to the police station. On the same day i.e on 1.2.2007 at about 9.45
p.m., Suresh Tiwari received a telephone call on his Tata Indicom Phone No. 65735510. The phone call was made from phone number 28454610. The caller told him that he should keep an amount of Rs. Ten Lacs ready by the next day evening failing which Anishkumar will be no more. The caller then disconnected the phone. Suresh Tiwari then went to Kashimira Police Station and informed the police about the demand of ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs. At that time, he gave his phone number and the phone number of the caller to the police. He then lodged his complaint Exh. 51. Suresh Tiwari felt that the voice of the caller resembled the voice of the appellant and he told this fact to his wife Seema. Suresh was well acquainted with the voice of the appellant as the appellant was residing with him since a few months. The appellant was the son of the brother-in-law of Suresh i.e son of his wife's brother.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 20
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
13. The fact that Suresh informed the others that the voice
on the telephone asking for ransom resembled the voice of
the appellant, is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 Achaldeo. PW 4 Achaldeo has stated that he went to
the police station to lodge the missing complaint. At about 10.30 p.m., his brother Suresh (PW 1) called him on telephone and asked him whether he had received any telephone call in relation to his son Anishkumar. Achaldeo replied in the negative. Then Suresh informed Achaldeo that he had received a telephone call on his residential landline number 65735510. Suresh further told Achaldeo that the call
was made from telephone number 28454610. Suresh informed Achaldeo that the caller had demanded a ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs and if it was not paid, Anishkumar would be
killed. Suresh then told Achaldeo that he was going to the police station to lodge the complaint about telephone call. On reaching the police station, Suresh met Achaldeo who was already in the police station. At that time, Suresh informed Achaldeo that the voice of the caller was just like
jfoanz vkacsjdj 21
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
the voice of the son of his brother-in-law who was residing in
his house. Achaldeo then told Suresh that the appellant is the son of his relative and he will not do such thing. After that Suresh lodged his FIR with the police.
caller was like that of the appellant is further corroborated by
the evidence of PW 6 Seema. Seema is the wife of PW 1 Suresh. Seema has stated that Achaldeo is her younger brother-in-law. Anishkumar was the son of Achaldeo. She knew the appellant as he was the son of her real brother. The appellant was residing in the house of Seema and Suresh at Kashimira. On 1.2.2007, Anishkumar was not found, hence, they searched for him. At that time PW 5 Rita Kapildev Tiwari told her that the appellant had taken Anishkumar with him for giving him an ice cream. After sometime, a phone call was received on her landline. The call was received by her husband (PW 1 Suresh). The caller told her husband that if he fails to pay Rs. Ten Lacs till the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 22
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
next day evening, Anishkumar would be killed. Her husband
Suresh told Seema that the voice of the caller who made the demand for ransom resembled the voice of the appellant. The same day at about 10.30 p.m., the appellant came to the
house of Seema and Suresh Tiwari where he used to stay. Suresh then told the appellant that the voice on the phone call which he received was resembling the voice of the
appellant. The appellant then stated that it was not his voice. Then Suresh asked the appellant that he had taken Anishkumar with him and where was Anishkumar but the appellant stated that he had not taken Anishkumar with him.
asking for ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs and if the amount is not paid, the child would be killed, is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 8 Rita Achaldeo Tiwari who is the mother of
Anishkumar. She has clearly stated that she went to the house of PW 6 Seema Tiwari. Seema Tiwari told her that there was a phone call at her house and the caller gave
jfoanz vkacsjdj 23
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
threat that if the ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs is not paid till the
next day evening, the child will be no more.
1.2.2007 at about 9.50 p.m., the appellant came to his PCO
to make a call. Nagnath has stated that he had a PCO booth having telephone number 28454610. On 1.2.2007 at about
9.50 p.m., one person of fair complexion had come to his PCO booth to make a telephone call. The person asked him whether his PCO is in working condition to which Nagnath replied in the affirmative. Then Nagnath went to public lavatory nearby. By then the person had left the shop. Nagnath identified the appellant as the same person who had come to his PCO booth to make a telephone call on
1.2.2007 at 9.50 p.m. Nagnath has also identified the appellant in the test identification parade.
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 24
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
statement of Nagnath was recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has stated that one person came to his PCO booth on 2.2.2007 to make a phone call. However, it is seen that the statement of Nagnath was recorded prior to this by the police in which there is no contradiction or discrepancy in relation to the date. Thus, we are not inclined to give much importance to this fact that in
his later statement, Nagnath has given incorrect date. In any event, the fact that the telephone call was made from PCO booth of PW 3 Nagnath to the house of Suresh and Seema Tiwari is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 12 Shekhar Palande who was working as Assistant Nodal Officer in Tata Tele Services. He has produced the call details record of the telephone calls made from the PCO booth of PW 3 Nagnath to the house of Seema and Suresh Tiwari. He has produced the call data record of the calls made from the PCO Booth of PW 3 Nagnath i.e from phone number 28454610 to telephone number 65735510 i.e phone number
which was in the name of PW 6 Seema. This shows that on
jfoanz vkacsjdj 25
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
1.2.2007at 21.47, call was made from the PCO booth of PW 3
Nagnath to the house of Seema and Suresh Tiwari.
call data record cannot be relied upon because at some places the call made from the PCO booth of PW 3 Nagnath to
the house of Seema and Suresh Tiwari is above some
telephone calls and in some places, the sequence of calls before and after these calls is different. As far as, this aspect
is concerned, it is seen that the police had collected only the limited information just to corroborate that the call was made from PCO booth of PW 3 to the landline of Seema and Suresh Tiwari. They were not checking the entire call data records. The call data record clearly shows that call was made at
9.47 p.m. from the PCO booth of PW 3 Nagnath to the landline of Seema and Suresh Tiwari.
19. That Anishkumar died a homicidal death is seen from
the evidence of PW 15 Dr. Dhotre who conducted the
jfoanz vkacsjdj 26
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
postmortem on the dead body of Anishkumar. He has stated that he found V-shaped scratch mark over the neck centrally over thyroid cartilage of size 2.5 cms in length. According to Dr. Dhotre, this injury can be caused by pressing of neck. He has further stated that the cause of death was drowning.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 27
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
that any mathematical precision can be attached to it. Thus, we find no merit in this submission that as Dr. Dhotre stated that the death of the boy might have been caused on 2.2.2007 at about 2.30 a.m., hence, the appellant had no connection with the death of Anishkumar.
conduct. PW 1 Suresh has stated that he was residing at Saibaba Nagar, Mashachapada Road at Kashimira. Around his house, his three brothers namely Achaldeo, Bhigunath and Kapildev were residing with their families. His brother Achaldeo had two sons and two daughters. Anishkumar was the son of Achaldeo. Anishkumar used to come to the house of Suresh to take tuition. Suresh has stated that the appellant is the son of his brother-in-law i.e son of his wife's brother. In the year 2005, the appellant for the first time had come to the house of Suresh at Kashimira. The appellant resided with them for a period of 5-6 months. The appellant had come in search of a job. Despite his efforts, Suresh
jfoanz vkacsjdj 28
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
could not find a job for the appellant. Then Suresh informed his brother-in-law that he was sending the appellant back to his house for doing computer course. About 1 & 1/2 months prior to the incident, again the appellant came to the house of Suresh from his native place. At that time, he had completed his computer course. PW 1 Suresh then got employment for the appellant with Doshi Industries on a monthly salary of Rs. 2000/-. On 31.1.2007 in the morning as usual, Seema (PW 6), the wife of Suresh had prepared a tiffin for the appellant and gave it to him but the appellant told her that he did not want the tiffin as he had left the job. At that time, PW 1 Suresh was present there. PW 1 Suresh asked the appellant whether he had found any other job but the appellant did not give any reply to Suresh. Suresh then
angrily told the appellant that he cannot do anything here, hence, the appellant should go back to his native place. The appellant then told Suresh that he would go back to his native place on 4.2.2007. Suresh then angrily told the appellant why he was going on 4th and he should go just
jfoanz vkacsjdj 29
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
now. The appellant was then going out of the house whereupon Suresh asked the appellant where he was going. The appellant told Suresh that his sheth i.e his employer had called him. After that the appellant left the house. At about 6.30 p.m., Suresh came home. He saw the appellant coming towards his house. He asked the appellant where he had gone but the appellant did not give any reply to Suresh. On 1.2.2007 at night, Rita Kapildev Tiwari (PW 5) told Suresh that at about 9.00 p.m., the appellant had taken Anishkumar with him. She further told him that she had objected but the appellant told her that he would bring Anishkumar within a short time. On the same night at about 10.30 p.m., the appellant came home i.e to the house of PW 1 Suresh. Suresh asked the appellant that he had taken Anishkumar
and where was Anishkumar. Thereupon, the appellant replied that he did not know about Anishkumar. Then they searched for Anishkumar the whole night but Anishkumar was not found. On 2.2.2007 his brother Achaldeo called him
and told him that the dead body of a small boy was found
jfoanz vkacsjdj 30
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
near Mira Road Railway Station. Suresh then immediately went to Mira Road Railway Station. He noticed the dead body of Anishkumar was lying there. Soon after that, Suresh received a telephone call from his wife Seema (PW 6) that the appellant was making preparation to go to his native place hurriedly. Therefore, Suresh became suspicious. He thought that the appellant was to go to his native place on 4.2.2007 then why the appellant was making preparations hurriedly to go to his native place on 2.2.2007. Suresh then informed the police about the same. Police then apprehended the appellant.
was to go to his native place on 4.2.2007, however, as soon as the dead body of Anishkumar was traced on 2.2.2007 in the morning, the appellant hurriedly started making preparation to go to his native place. This conduct of the appellant is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 6
Seema and PW 8 Rita Achaldeo Tiwari. PW 6 Seema is the
jfoanz vkacsjdj
31
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
wife of Suresh. The appellant was the son of her real brother. The appellant was residing with Seema and Suresh. Seema has stated that on 31.1.2007 at about 9.00 a.m., she had cooked the food. She told the appellant to take his tiffin but the appellant told her that he did not want the tiffin as he had left the job. At that time, her husband PW 1 Suresh was present there. PW 1 Suresh asked the appellant whether he
had found any job but the appellant did not give any reply to Suresh. Thereafter, Suresh told the appellant that if he is not ready to work then he should go to his native place. The appellant got angry on account of this and he told Suresh that he would go to his native place on 4.2.2007. Then Suresh told the appellant why he wants to go to his native place on 4.2.2007. The appellant did not give any reply and
left the house. Anishkumar used to come to the house of Seema along with other children for tuition. At about 8.45
p.m., the mother of Anishkumar came to the house of Seema. The mother of Anishkumar asked Seema
whereabouts of Anishkumar whereupon Seema replied that
jfoanz vkacsjdj 32
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
he had left her residence. Thereafter, PW 5 Rita Kapildev Tiwari told them that the appellant had taken Anishkumar from her house for giving him an ice cream. They searched for Anishkumar but he could not be found. Seema has stated that they received a phone call demanding a ransom of Rs. Ten Lacs. At about 10.30 p.m,, the appellant came home. Her husband Suresh told the appellant that they had received a telephone call and the voice on the telephone was resembling that of the appellant. The appellant replied that it was not his voice. Then Suresh asked the appellant that he had taken Anishkumar but the appellant denied this fact. On 2.2.2007, Achaldeo, the father of Anishkumar informed them on telephone that somebody had killed Anishkumar. Then Seema saw that the appellant was packing his belongings in a bag. She then asked the appellant where he was going. Thereupon, the appellant stated that he is going to his native place. Seema then informed this fact to Suresh on telephone.
jfoanz vkacsjdj 33
11. cri appeal 1339-11 (j).doc
the decision of this Court in the case of Shashikant Tulsidas Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra2 . He submitted that the facts therein are similar to the facts of the present case and the accused therein came to be acquitted, however, on going through the said decision, we find that the facts therein are not similar to those in the present case,
hence, this decision cannot be made applicable to the present case.
though it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances which unerringly points out to the guilt of the appellant. Thus, we
find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
2 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3531
jfoanz vkacsjdj 34
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence unerringly points to the appellant's guilt for kidnapping a child for ransom and murdering him.
Whether the appellant's conduct and the last seenTogether circumstance discharge the burden on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the lower court's conviction under Sections 302 and 364A IPC should be upheld on appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shashikant Tulsidas Kamble Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3531Distinguished¶218
Abhishek Virendra Dubey
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
