Case: Girdhari Paramand Vadhava Vs. State Of Maharashtra

part of Girdhari only reflects that Girdhari did not intend to kill Vaibhav. Such submission cannot, however, be accepted because of the subsequent role of Girdhari. If after making such statement Girdhari had not taken any active role in helping Birju to commit the murder of Vaibhav, the said statement of Girdhari perhaps would have indicated about his intention not to kill Vaibhav. In our view, in all probability, as submitted by Mr Tulsi, Girdhari wanted that Vaibhav should be kept alive for some more time so that the ransom amount would be realised by keeping him detained. But when Birju after talking to the mother of Vaibhav declared that the amount as demanded by Birju was not going to be paid by the family of Vaibhav and Vaibhav should be killed so as to set an example that if the demand of Birju and his associates was not met it would invite death and then proceeded to kill Vaibhav after undressing him and torturing him brutally, Girdhari along with other accused actively assisted Birju in murdering Vaibhav by holding Vaibhav tightly till he breathed his last. It may also be indicated here that when searches were made by the members of the family to trace out Vaibhav, the family members had also gone to Girdharis house because Vaibhav had left his home in the company of Girdhari. On enquiry at the house of Girdhari, the family members disclosed that Girdhari had left for Bombay in the morning. The fact remains that Girdhari had not left for Bombay but he was very much in the town itself. It is quite likely that in view of the conspiracy to hold Vaibhav for ransom, Girdhari knew that he would not come back to his home at night and presumably to explain his absence from his home, he had made a false representation to the members of his family that he would go to Bombay 38. It has been clearly proved by PW 3 and PW 5 that all the accused including Girdhari had taken part in killing Vaibhav after holding him for ransom and attempting to realise money from the family of Vaibhav. From the evidence, it has transpired that Birju was a dreaded criminal. He had extorted money from other persons on previous occasions. He also masterminded the crimes committed by the accused including Girdhari and had also taken the leading role and finally killed Vaibhav by strangulating him with his own belt. But from the evidence adduced in the case, it has also been clearly established that all the other accused including Girdhari conspired to hold Vaibhav for ransom when he would be brought to Mithun Farm. All the said accused were also actively associated with Birju in murdering Vaibhav. 39. A crime even if perpetrated with extreme brutality may not constitute "terrorist activity" within the meaning of Section 3(1) of TADA. For constituting "terrorist activity" under Section 3(1) of TADA, the activity must be intended to strike terror in people or a section of the people or bring about other consequences referred to in the said Section 3(1). Terrorist activity is not confined to unlawful activity or crime committed against an individual or individual but it aims at bringing about terror in the minds of people or section of people disturbing public order, public peace and tranquillity, social and communal harmony, disturbing or destabilising public administration and threatening security and integrity of the country. In the instant case, the intention to strike terror in the minds of the people can be reasonably inferred because Birju declared such intention in no uncertain terms by indicating that Vaibhav should be killed in order to send the message to the people in the locality that if the demand of Birju and his associates was not met, extreme consequence of killing of an innocent person would be resorted to. In order to send such message to the society, it was decided that Vaibhav would be killed and Vaibhav was killed for giving effect to the intended threat to the people. If an innocent boy is killed only because the demand for ransom amount was not met by the family members, such killing cannot but send a shockwave and bring about terror in the minds of the people of the locality. In Niranjan Singh case this - Court has also indicated that killing of underworld dons who were held to be rivals of the accused for gaining supremacy in the underworld cannot be held to have been intended to strike terror in the minds of the people or a section of the people but it will assume altogether a different dimension if in order to strike terror in people or a section of people some innocent persons are killed because in that case, the intention to strike terror will achieve that objective. It is the impact of the crime and its fallout on the society and the potentiality of such crime in producing fear in the minds of the people or a section of the people which makes a crime, a terrorist activity under Section 3(1) of TADA. In our view, in the facts of the case, the learned Designated Judge has rightly convicted the accused for offences under Section 3(1) of TADA besides convicting each of them under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. We may, however, indicate here that in any event, for the offence of murder the accused have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It will be of little consequence so far as sentence part is concerned, if the conviction under Section 3(2)(1) of TADA is not made. 40. So far as the other co-accused are concerned, some of them had even tortured Vaibhav both physically and mentally apart from taking active role in holding Vaibhav for ransom and murdering him. Hence, convictions of all the accused for the aforesaid offences are fully justified and no interference is called for against such convictions.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]36. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences through which we have been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that a young schoolboy was brutally murdered after subjecting him to various physical and mental tortures with utmost cruelty. The deceased Vaibhav was taken from his home by Accused 3 Girdhari to Mithun Farmhouse which was situated at a lonely place. It has been clearly established by the deposition of the mother of the mother of the deceased PW 2 Meena that Girdhari was a friend of the deceased and was on visiting terms with Vaibhav. It has also come out in the evidence that Girdhari negotiated for the sale of a casio piano which belonged to Vaibhav and purchased by PW 3 who was also known to Girdhari. According to PW 3, he had paid the price of the said piano on the previous day when such piano was delivered by girdhari. Even then, on a false pretext that the price of the piano would be realised by Vaibhav from PW 3 by coming to his house at Mithun Farm, Vaibhav was taken to the said Mithun Farm by Girdhari. When Girdhari told PW 3 that the owner of the said casio piano had come with him to realise the price of the said piano, PW 3 immediately replied that why would the owner come when he had already paid the price for the said piano to Girdhari on the previous day. Girdhari did not make any protest against such assertion about the payment of price of piano by PW 3. Such assertion by PW 3, without any protest by Girdhari, stands corroborated by the deposition of PW 5. It is, therefore, quite evident that Girdhari had received the price from PW 3 but on a false plea of realising the sale price of the piano, he induced the deceased Vaibhav to come with him to MithunA crime even if perpetrated with extreme brutality may not constitute "terrorist activity" within the meaning of Section 3(1) of TADA. For constituting "terrorist activity" under Section 3(1) of TADA, the activity must be intended to strike terror in people or a section of the people or bring about other consequences referred to in the said Section 3(1). Terrorist activity is not confined to unlawful activity or crime committed against an individual or individual but it aims at bringing about terror in the minds of people or section of people disturbing public order, public peace and tranquillity, social and communal harmony, disturbing or destabilising public administration and threatening security and integrity of the country. In the instant case, the intention to strike terror in the minds of the people can be reasonably inferred because Birju declared such intention in no uncertain terms by indicating that Vaibhav should be killed in order to send the message to the people in the locality that if the demand of Birju and his associates was not met, extreme consequence of killing of an innocent person would be resorted to. In order to send such message to the society, it was decided that Vaibhav would be killed and Vaibhav was killed for giving effect to the intended threat to the people. If an innocent boy is killed only because the demand for ransom amount was not met by the family members, such killing cannot but send a shockwave and bring about terror in the minds of the people of the locality. In Niranjan Singh case thisCourt has also indicated that killing of underworld dons who were held to be rivals of the accused for gaining supremacy in the underworld cannot be held to have been intended to strike terror in the minds of the people or a section of the people but it will assume altogether a different dimension if in order to strike terror in people or a section of people some innocent persons are killed because in that case, the intention to strike terror will achieve that objective. It is the impact of the crime and its fallout on the society and the potentiality of such crime in producing fear in the minds of the people or a section of the people which makes a crime, a terrorist activity under Section 3(1) of TADA. In our view, in the facts of the case, the learned Designated Judge has rightly convicted the accused for offences under Section 3(1) of TADA besides convicting each of them under Section302 read with Sectionof the IPC. We may, however, indicate here that in any event, for the offence of murder the accused have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It will be of little consequence so far as sentence part is concerned, if the conviction under Section 3(2)(1) of TADA is notSo far as the otherare concerned, some of them had even tortured Vaibhav both physically and mentally apart from taking active role in holding Vaibhav for ransom and murdering him. Hence, convictions of all the accused for the aforesaid offences are fully justified and no interference is called for against such convictions