STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHAMMAD ALI ABDUL AJIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 15/1994 acquitting them of the offences punishable under sections 365, 302, 201, read with section 34 of I. P. C. The respondents were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge for kidnapping one Rahul s/o Gangadhar Ranvir on 5-7-1993 and further committing his murder in furtherance of their common intention.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated on the basis of report Exhibit 46 lodged by one Vinod Mamidwar (P. W. 3) on 13-7-1993 at Police Station Umarkhed and admittedly offence was registered at Crime No. 114/1993 in the Police Station. The victim Rahul as usual left house on 5-7-1993 in the morning for attending the school, but he did not return home and that is how his father Gangadhar made search for his son. Though search was made, ultimately the boy was not traced. In fact witness Pratibha (P. W. 1) who was the school teacher informed that Rahul did not attend the school from 2-7-1993 to 8-7-193. Therefore, on behalf of Gangadhar one Shankar Khillar (P. W. 2) lodged a missing report Exhibit 43 at Police Station Umarkhed on 7-7-1993. On 12-7-1993, Gangadhar received one Inland Letter contending that the person who kidnapped Rahul demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/ -. One Vinod Mamidwar (P. W. 3) filed report Exhibit 46 on 13-7-1993 and also produced a xerox copy of that Inland Letter in that Police Station. In the mean time one Ashok Narwade the brother in-law of Gangadhar told him that Gautam Tukaram Narwade has asked him to send Gangadhar to see him as Gautam Narwade has heard both the respondents telling each other that their plan of extracting amount from the complainant i. e. Gangadhar has failed. Accordingly Gangadhar met Gautam Narawade at village Kupti and disclosed him about the talk that took place between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. The information was conveyed to the Police Station Officer and in pursuance of that respondents came to be arrested and brought to the Police Station.

(3.) IN the course of investigation on 23-7-1993 while in the Police Station in presence of panchas Rajesh Devidas and Shiodansingh Devising both the residents alleged to have confessed that they have committed murder of Rahul and respondent No. 2 agreed to show the spot from where Rahul was kidnapped. In pursuance of that disclosure made, police taking with them, respondent No. 1 went to the place as pointed out by him, but as it was dark they could not ascertain exact spot and as such they returned back. It was on the next date in the morning the police again went out alongwith respondent No. 1 to the house of one Mohd. Ali Abdul Ajiz who happens to be his father in law and search for his house was taken and then after they did not find anything in the house respondent No. 1 took them to the side of Kalamkonda Forest near streamlet, there they found one Gamcha, Human Hair, White Half Pant and Skull and pieces of bone lying scattered on the ground. These articles were seized under panchanama. Then on 25-7-1993 the accused No. 1 made a disclosure to produce school bag of Rahul which was given to the son of Shaikh Babu Gulam Nabi resident of Rahuri. In pursuance of the statement made accused No. 1 led to the police to the house of Shaikh Babu Gulam Nabi and got produced one school bag, which came to be seized under seizure memo. The articles seized were sent to the chemical analyser for examination. The skull and pieces of bones were sent to the Professor of Anatomy for examination. After the completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.