Bombay High Court
Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-AS:19705-DB
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5098 OF 2024
Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari,
Age 28 eyars, Occupation : Labour Work,
R/at: Khandupada, Bhiwandi,
District : Thane. .....Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
At the instance of Bhiwandi
City Police Station, District : Thane,
Vide C.R.No.I-232 of 2013,
Tried in Sessions Case No. 248/2014. .....Respondent
Mr. B. A. Lawate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent-State.
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 23rd APRIL 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 30th APRIL 2025.
JUDGMENT :
– (Per Dr. 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
Shivgan 1/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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
Shivgan 2/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.docwere 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
Shivgan 3/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.docStation 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.
Shivgan 4/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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
Shivgan 5/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
(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.
Shivgan 6/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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
Shivgan 7/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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 Chhatisgarh1 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
Maharashtra2, 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
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355
Shivgan 8/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
witness, which read as under:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by
the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and
place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are
material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must
be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real
culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements
are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be
discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normallyShivgan 9/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doccreep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be
discarded.”
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
3 (2015) 9 SCC 502
Shivgan 10/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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 cross-
examination, nothing material is elicited. Although he could not
Shivgan 11/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
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 cross-
examination to doubt his statement.
Shivgan 12/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
11. PW/3, PW/4 and PW/6 are the victims of abduction. Their
individual testimony supports the testimony given by each other.
Their stories match and there is no material deviation in their
narrations. All of them deposed that one of the accused made them
accompany him at the point of knife and demanded an amount of
Rs.20,000/-. The accused including the Appellant, threatened to kill
them if the amount is not paid. A call was made to the complainant
from the mobile phone of Ramesh Dangi. Ramesh deposed that he
was compelled to call and tell the complainant to bring Rs.15,000/- as
ransom to a designated place near Hotel Sagar Plaza. The complainant
came with the amount. Thereafter, the police trapped the accused
while taking the money. That this accused was the Appellant. All the
witnesses/victims identified the Appellant and the knife in Court.
12. Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), one of the three victims has
supported the story of PW/3 and PW/4, the other victims. There are
some variations but they are so minor and of no substantial
consequence. Nothing material or contradictory has emerged from
the cross-examination. There is no reason to doubt the statements of
the victims, who have deposed in the Court.
Shivgan 13/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
13. PW/7 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed as to the
recording of Panchnama in the presence of panchas. He also deposed
as to the seizure of the revolver and four live cartridges from the
Appellant and having sent the same for analysis to the Ballistic Expert.
He also deposed regarding the number on the currency notes recorded
in the police station. However, he also stated that there was no order
of the Commissioner of Police as required under the Bombay Police
Act.
14. The FSL report is at Exhibit 31. The result of analysis
clearly indicates that the countrymade handgun seized was in working
condition and was used for firing before its receipt in the laboratory.
This clearly shows that the threat to the life of the victims was real and
the threat could have been easily carried out by the Appellant and the
other accused.
15. The aforesaid discussion reveals that in the present case,
evidence placed by the prosecution to establish a case under Section
364A of the IPC is in the form of a phone call to the complainant
threatening to kill the victims of abduction in the event the amount of
ransom as demanded, was not paid. Thus, the demand of ransom is
Shivgan 14/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
clearly established. The knife and the gun recovered also indicate that
the threat to the life of the victims was very real. The statements of all
the three victims support each other and the final clinching piece of
evidence is the recovery of the money exchanged. Thus, the three
distinct components specified by the Apex Court in Vikram Singh
(Supra) are satisfied. An offence under Section 364A of the IPC is
clearly made out. Furthermore, keeping in view the six broad
principles laid down by the Apex Court in Balu Khalde (Supra), we
find the testimony of the victims of the crime to be compelling and
inspires confidence. We have no hesitation in holding that the act of
abduction for ransom is complete and has been committed by the
Appellant and his accomplices.
16. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the
Judgment and the Order impugned herein is well reasoned and is a
sound legal decision. The evidence on record, when assessed in its
entirety, establishes the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt. The observations of the Trial Court are compelling and do not
warrant any interference. The prosecution has established its case
beyond all reasonable doubt based on legal, cogent and admissible
Shivgan 15/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc
evidence. The Appeal, thus fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. The
conviction and the sentence of the Appellant stands confirmed.
17. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Interim
Application No. 5098 of 2024 does not survive and is also disposed
off.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2025.04.30
17:40:16
+0530Shivgan 16/16
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
[ad_1]
Source link