GIRDHARI PARMANAND VADHAVA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as TADA) against convictions and sentences passed by the learned Judge, Designated Court, Nasik in Social Case No. 1 of 1993 by Judgment dated September 21, 1994. Five accused including the three appellants were tried for offences under Sections 143,364,368,385,302 read with Section 120B and Section 140, IPC and Section 3(2)(1) of TADA.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on September 15, 1992, the complainant Kantilal Katyare returned to his house at about 8.15 P.M. He was then informed by his wife that his grandson Vaibhav had gone with the accused No. 3 Girdhari who is the appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 319 of 1995 on a scooter to bring the price of casio piano since sold by Vaibhav but Vaibhav had not returned. Suspecting something foul, Vaibhavs father had gone in search of Vaibhav. At about 9.30 P. M, Vaibhavs father Vijay informed the complainant on phone that Vaibhav could not be traced. He had, therefore, gone to the Devlali Camp police station. The complainant and also informed the police on phone to search Vaibhav. At about 11.15 P.M. a person talked to the complainant on phone in Hindi informing the complainant that Vaibhav was in their custody and if the amount of Rs. two lacs would be paid. Vaibhav would be released. Vaibhav also talked to the complainant on phone stating that the said persons were severely beating him and would kill him. So he should pay the amount as demanded by them. On enquiry by the complainant, Vaibhav told that he was talking from Deolali Camp. Vaibhav also informed that he was tied with a rope and a revolver and pointed on his head and the said persons were not allowing him to give their phone number or addresses. Vaibhav requested the complainant to save him. The complainant thereafter requested the person who talked to him earlier, not to beat Vaibhav and he also informed that he was prepared to comply with their demand and they would take away the amount or the complainant would himself come with the amount at the place to be named by them.

(3.) It is the prosecution case that immediately thereafter, the complainant went to the Nasik Road police station and informed the matter to the police. Along with police he had also come to Deolali Camp and they had also gone to the house of Girdhari accused No. 3. But they were informed by the family members of Girdhari that since morning, Girdhari had gone to Bombay. They also searched the houses of the friends of Vaibhav but Vaibhav could not be found.