BIRJU INDORI GIJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted by the Court of Designated Judge, Nashik, for the offence punishable under Section 120b, 302 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code and 3 (2) (1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) Briefly stated what was alleged and what has been proved against the appellant is that the appellant and his associates viz. (1) Ranjit @ Ravindra Nathu Sonawana, (2) Ravin @ Ravindra Jumman Zanzot, (3) Girdhari Parmanand Wadhava, (4) Major (@) Ravindra Mogal Pande, and (5) Bandhya (@) Sanjay Mohan Jadhav committed the murder of Vaibhav during the night between 15.9.1992 and 16.9.1992. Vaibhav was first kidnapped by Girdhari and taken to Mithun Farm where he was tied and beaten. Girdhari then contacted the family members of Vaibhav and demanded Rs. 2 lacs for releasing Vaibhav. The appellant had at that time caught hair of Vaibhav and pointed a revolver at his head and made him tell his parents that the amount should be paid otherwise he would be killed. Thereafter at the instance of Birju, Major Pande ill treated Vaibhav by making him drink liquor and eat mutton and when he spitted out mutton put in his mouth, Birju and his associates started beating him. Again after about 1 1/2 hours the family of Vaibhav was contacted on telephone and demand of Rs. 2 lacs was repeated. Thereafter, at the instance of the appellant, clothes of Vaibhav were removed by Major Pande and a knife blow was given on his stomach. Then he was beaten with a wooden stick. Girdhari thereafter caught the legs of vaibhav and Birju removed his belt and tied it around the neck of Vaibhav and pulled it forcibly. Desperate attempts were made by Vaibhav to get himself free but in that process he died and fell down on the ground. The appellant then told his associates to keep a watch over the dead body and left that place.

(3.) Initially, all the accused were put up for trial in Special Case No. 1 of 1993 but as the appellant was absconding his case was separated and he came to be tried after his arrest in Special Case No. 1 of 1997.