SALIM ABBAS CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFICER, POLICE STATION, RAMDASPETH, AKOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.08.2003 passed by the Court of 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola (trial Court) in Sessions Trial No.132/2002, whereby the appellant (accused no.2) stood convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he stood sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each on both counts.

(2.) The appellant was the original accused no. As per the prosecution case, on 01.05.2002, Anwar Ali (accused no.1) took Shahajad Ali (PW2), minor son of Shamsher Ali (PW1), from near his home in Akola. When Shamsher Ali (PW1) looked for his son, he could not find him and on the next day, he lodged an oral report on 005.2002 in Police Station, where First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. The said witness Shamsher Ali (PW1) stated that he suspected Anwar Ali (accused no.1) for having kidnapped his son because the said Anwar Ali was initially employed with Shamsher Ali (PW1) and that there had been a quarrel between them. Later, Shamsher Ali (PW1) claimed to have received a call and he was informed that he should pay a ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/, if he wanted his son to be safe and that the amount be paid at Lucky Hotel, Saki Naka, Mumbai. According to the prosecution case, Anwar Ali (accused no.1) had taken the child victim Shahjad Ali (PW2) to Mumbai to one of his friends where they stayed in the night and on the next day i.e. on 03.05.2002, Anwar Ali (accused no.1) took Shahjad Ali (PW2) to the shop of a tailor Jinnan Ali (PW7), where the appellant (accused no.2) met accused no.1. It is from there that both the accused took Shahjad Ali (PW2) in an autorickshaw from Saki Naka to near Lucky Hotel, where Anwar Ali (accused no.1) told the appellant to get down from the autorickshaw and collect the bag full of ransom money, which Shamsher Ali (PW1) had brought. According to the prosecution, Shamsher Ali (PW1) had been told that when the bag full of ransom amount was collected from him, he should give a signal and upon doing so, policemen in plain clothes followed the appellant, who had by then started walking towards autorickshaw in which Anwar Ali (accused no.1) and child victimShahjad Ali (PW2) were sitting. It was near a STD booth that the autorickshaw had been waiting, but upon the policemen chasing the appellant, he ran towards the said booth where he was caught by the policemen and, thereafter, Anwar Ali (accused no.1) was also apprehended. Custody of the child victimShahjad Ali (PW2) was handed over to his father Shamsher Ali (PW1). On this basis, both the accused including the appellant, were charged with having committed an offence under Sections 363, 365 and 384 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. The material witnesses were; Shamsher Ali (PW1), father of the child victim, Shahjad Ali (PW2), the child victim, Mari Muthu (PW6), autorickshaw driver and Dnyandeo Choudhari (PW9), the investigating officer. Hira Choudhari (PW3), Jumma Kasam (PW4) and Sk. Jumma Sk Buddhu Choudhari (PW5) were the pancha witnesses, who had turned hostile.