VAIBHAV SHANTARAM MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, at Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.165 of 2011 (hereinafter appellant will be referred to as "accused" for the sake of brevity). By the said Judgment and Order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The accused was further convicted under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused was also convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused was further convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Prabhakar Jagtap is the complainant (P.W.1). He is having one daughter by name Pratiksha and was having a son by name Harishchandra (deceased). They were resident of Dhansukh Bhavan, Opp. Mugalwadi Sahitya Sangh Natyagruha, Girgaon. They were residing in a rented premises. The accused was their neighbour. Due to the acquaintance and neighbourhood, accused always used to visit the house of the complainant. He used to carry Harishchandra, without informing his parents. The complainant then shifted to Matunga. The brother of the accused is the neighbour of the complainant. Accused started residing in the house of his brother and due to the prior acquaintance he continued frequently visiting the house of the complainant and he used to take Harishchandra with him behind back of his parents. On 24/09/2010, at the time of Ganpati festival, without informing the parents of Harishchandra, he was taken by the accused to his native place. The parents of Harishchandra ousted the accused as well as Harishchandra from their house. Thereafter accused reached Harishchandra to the house of complainant. On 28.9.2010, deceased Harishchandra was again taken by the accused without informing his parents to Girgaon where accused was previously residing, however he reached Harishchandra to complainant's house.

(3.) On the day of incident i.e. on 29.10.2010 at about 8.00 a.m. the complainant as well as his wife left the house for their work leaving behind Pratiksha and Harishchandra in his house. At about 8.30 p.m., when they returned to their house they did not notice Harishchandra in their house. They made enquiry in neighbourhood but in vain. Missing complainant was then lodged by the complainant at Shahunagar Police Station on the next day i.e. 30.10.2010. On 30.10.2010, the neighbour of the complainant Smt. Ashwini Bhaud (P.W.3) informed to the complainant that accused was seen with Harishchandra on 29th October 2010 at 5.30 pm. Considering the antecedents, the complainant suspected that accused must have kidnapped his son with same ill intention and therefore, he proceeded to the police station and lodged complaint (Exh.8) against the accused on 31.10.2010. On the basis of the said complaint, offence was registered vide CR No.244/2010 and investigation commenced.