Case: Girdhari Paramand Vadhava Vs. State Of Maharashtra

2. The prosecution case in short is that onthe 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 Accused 3 Girdhari who is the appellant in Criminal 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 Deolali Camp Police Station. The complainant had 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 lakhs 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 was 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 byIt 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 the police he had also come to Deolali Camp and they had also gone to the house of3. 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 beVijay also searched for Vaibhav but without any success. At about 4.30 a.m. ona complaint was lodged expressing apprehensions that at about 7.00 p.m. onVaibhav had been kidnapped by Girdhari under the pretext of realising the price of the casio piano but later on the accused had demanded ransom of Rs two lakhs. At about 6.00 a.m. onthe police had come to the complainants house and informed him that Vaibhav had been brought to Bytoo Hospital. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to the hospital where they found the dead body of Vaibhav. He was wearing only underpants and several injuries including swelling on the neck of the dead body of Vaibhav, were noticed. The complainant was informed that Girdhari, Birju and their colleagues had kidnapped Vaibhav and had taken him to the premises known as Mithun Farm near Deolali Camp and they had killed Vaibhav as the ransom of Rs two lakhs had not been paid to them. Accordingly, a supplementary complaint was recorded as part of the complaint Ex. 21 and Crime No. 323 of 1992 was registered by theThe investigation had been carried out by Mr Pote, Police Inspector (Crime) Ex. 76, Police Inspector, Mr Sarnaik Ex. 93, Mr Marathe, Police Inspector (Crime) Ex. 95 and Mr Chaudhari, Police Inspector (Crime) Nasik Ex. 98. The investigations made by the police disclosed that Girdhari was apprehended by Police Inspector Dilip Daswani Ex. 25 and Shankar Albard Ex. 74 at about 4.30 p.m. onoutside Mithun Farmhouse. Accused 1 Ranjit @ Ravindra and Accused 2 Ravi @ Raviraj were also arrested onby 2.30 p.m. Accused 4 Major alias Ravindra Mogal was arrested onWitness Prabhakar Bawiskar had held identification parade on(Ex. 53) in which PW 4 Dilip Daswani identified Accused 5 as per Panchnama Ex. 50. Prabhakar Bawiskar, the Special Judicial Magistrate again held identification parade on(Ex. 53) in which witness Shankar Albard identified Accused 5 as per panchnama Ex. 52. Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 were produced before Shri Bansode, Deputy Commissioner of Police onfor recording their confessional statements. The said accused were given 48 hours time for reflection. Thereafter, they were again produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Police onThese four Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 had given their confessional statements Exs. 83, 87, 85 and 81 respectively before the Deputy Commissioner ofThe said accused however at the trial had stated that Birju who had killed Vaibhav by strangulating him with the help of his belt had absconded. All the accused denied the charges made against them and claimed to be tried and they asserted that they had been falsely involved in the case. Accused 1 to 4 also contended that their confessional statements before the Deputy Commissioner of Police were recorded after they were severely beaten and under threat of their being killed and they had not voluntarily given the confessional statements recorded in Exs. 81, 83, 85 and 87. Accused 1 in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code also stated that absconding accused Birju Indori, PW 3, PW 5 and Carroline themselves formed a gang and Birju was the agent of Katyare family. Accused 2 stated in his statement that though he had no concern with the alleged offences, he was brought by the police from his house at Deolali Camp under the assurance that he would be released on the same evening but he was falsely involved in the said case. Accused 3 Girdhari stated that he was a college student and also worked as a salesman in a cloth store. Accused 4 stated that onwhen he was playing football on cantonment school ground, the police jeep came there and he was brought to Deolali Camp Police Station. He had given his name as Ravindra Mogal Pande but the police were insisting that his name was Virendra Major Pande and were alleging that he was a colleague or companion of the absconding accused Birju Indori. He also stated that he was given a severe beating at the police station and along with him 3 to 4 persons were apprehended by the police. Two ladies, a boy of fair complexion and the said 3 to 4 persons were brought to Mukti Dham where some talks took place between Shri Pote, Police Inspector and the said 3 to 4 persons. He was only detained but the others were allowed to go. He also alleged that he was given electric shock on his private parts. He thereafter became unconscious and was later on brought to the Civil Hospital, Nasik where his injury was sutured. Accused 5 alleged that in the newspaper he had read about the incident wherein his name was also mentioned as a person involved in murdering Vaibhav. Therefore, along with the said newspaper, he himself had gone to the police station and given his name as Sanjay Mohan Jadhav. The police insisted him to disclose who was Bandya and he pleaded his ignorance. He also alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the saidPW 10 Carroline has deposed the Mithun Farmhouse belonged to her and PW 3 Pravin was her sisters son. Such fact has also been stated by PW 3 Pravin. Both the said witnesses have deposed that Pravin was staying in Mithun Farmhouse since September 1992. PW 3 and PW 5 have deposed that there was a phone in Mithun Farmhouse and the number of the telephone is 42177. The police has also noted the presence of a telephone in Mithun Farmhouse, number of which is 42177. Ex. 38 is a bill of the said telephone for the period from92 and such phone stands in the name of Carroline, Witness 10. The complainant and hisPW 2 deposed that they have also got a phone, the number of which is 61841. The learned Designated Court has, therefore, held that it has been clearly established that there are two phones respectively at the said two premises namely at Mithun Farm and at the house of the deceasedAbout the location of Mithun Farmhouse, the depositions of PWs 3, 5,get corroboration from the map Ex. 29 and the panchnama of place of offence Ex. 30. It transpires that the place where the incident had taken place is isolated. From the evidence of PW 3 and also from the evidence of PW 10, it is revealed that PW 3 had been staying in Mithun Farmhouse belonging to his aunt, PW 10. Accused 2, 4 and 5 had taken a room on rent on the first floor of the house. The owner of the said Mithun Farmhouse has also deposed that she had let out the first floor of the house to Accused 2, 4 and 5 at a monthly rental of Rs 500. Such deposition stands unchallenged. It has been established by cogent evidence that PW 5 was a friend of PW 3 and the said PW 5 used to come to the said farmhouse to meet his friend PW 3 and the said PW 5 used to come to the said farmbouse to meet his friend PW 3. It is also established that a boy aged about 10 years was engaged as adomestic helper for washing the utensils of PW 3. It also transpires from the deposition of PW 5 that PWs 3 and 5 were reading in the same class and since two years prior to the said incident, PW 5 was visiting PW 3 in the said Mithun Farmhouse quiteIt may be stated here that no identification parade was held in respect of Accused 3 Girdhari. The said accused was apprehended by the police and such fact is established from the deposition of PWs 4, 18, 22, 23 and 24. It also transpires that after apprehending Accused 3, he was taken in a police jeep and Accused 3 had led the police to MithunThe learned Designated Court has observed that in view of such facts there was no necessity of holding any identification parade for Accused 3. From the evidences of PWs 23 and 24, it also transpires that when the police reached Mithun Farmhouse along with Accused 3, the lights inside and outside the house were switched on. PW 23 has deposed that four persons were seen standing in the verandah. One of them was the absconding accused Birju. The said two witnesses have also deposed that on noticing the presence of the police party, Birju had shouted that police had come and they should run away. Such depositions of PWs 23 and 24 also stand corroborated from the evidences of PWs 3 and 5 who had also heard the said statement made by Birju. PW 23 has deposed that PSI Gite chased Birju and he asked the other police personnel to chase the other culprits. PW 23 thereafter chased other persons who were running towards the south. The said PW 23 could apprehend one of them at a distance of 100 feet and produced him before PSI Gite and the person who was apprehended by PW 23 is Accused 1. Similarly, PW 24 has deposed that on being asked by PSI Gite, he also chased one of the accused who was running towards the east and he apprehended the said accused at a distance of 100 ft. and the person so apprehended is AccusedThe learned Designated Court has observed that such depositions of the police personnel are fully reliable and there is nothing on record which may impel the Court to discard such evidence. PW 2 Meena the mother of the deceased, has deposed that Accused 3 Girdhari was working in Deepak Hosiery. She has further deposed that Deepak Hosiery was very close to her house. The complainant and PW 2 Meena have also deposed that there was friendship between the deceased Vaibhav and Accused 3 Girdhari and Accused 3 was on visiting terms with Vaibhav at hisThe actual incident in holding the deceased for ransom and the incident of murdering him after torturing him brutally and mercilessly assaulting him had taken place inside Mithun Farmhouse. PW 3 the resident of Mithun Farmhouse and PW 5, the friend of PW 3 who was then present in the said farmhouse, have given a detailed account as to how Vaibhav was brought to Mithun Farmhouse by Accused 3 on the pretext of realising the price of a casio piano which was sold by Vaibhav to PW 3 and how thereafter the accused Birju and other accused came down from the first floor and thereafter they started assaulting and torturing Vaibhav to PW 3 and PW 5 have deposed that on two occasions Birju telephoned to the members in the house of the deceased Vaibhav demanding ransom and he also compelled Vaibhav to speak to the members of his family over the telephone that his life was in danger and the persons who had held him for ransom were mercilessly beating him and if the money was not paid as demanded, he would be killed. From the depositions of PWs 3 and 5, it clearly transpires that although Birju took a leading part in holding the deceased Vaibhav for ransom and also demanding such ransom on two occasions after connecting the telephone number at the house of Vaibhav from the telephone kept in the said Mithun Farm, the other accused also played their respective role in assaulting and torturing the deceased after tying PW 3 and PW 5 and threatening them not to utter a word, otherwise they would be killed. Both the said PWs 3 and 5 have deposed that when for the second time the house of Vaibhav was contacted from the telephone kept in Mithun Farm and Birju talked on the telephone, Birju disconnected the telephone and declared that the amount of Rs two lakhs as demanded by him was not going to be paid and Vaibhav should, therefore, be killed to set an example that if the demand of Birju was not met, it would entail a very severeBoth the said witnesses have also deposed that Vaibhav was undressed and seriously assaulted and with the help of the belt of Birju, Birju tried to strangulate him. At one stage, Accused 3 Girdhari cautioned Birju that if the belt would be pulled on so tightly, the boy would die immediately and that should not be done. Birju then replied that the boy should be killed and he started pulling the belt tightly around the neck of Vaibhav with force. At that time all the accused including Girdhari held Vaibhav tightly, who was then desperately trying to free himself, so that Birju could execute the strangulation. Both PW 3 and PW 5 have deposed that after some time froth started coming from the mouth of Vaibhav and when the belt being pulled with great force gave away, the other accused holding Vaibhav released their hold. Vaibhav fell on the ground dead. Both of them have deposed that when for the second time, Vaibhavs house was contacted over the telephone from Mithun Farm, Vaibhav was forced to speak on the phone and Vaibhav had told his mother by saying that mummy should pay the amount as demanded otherwise he would be killed. PW 2 has also deposed to the same effect that when the accused contacted the telephone of the house of Vaibhav for the second time, PW 2 had picked up the telephone and she heard Vaibhav speaking to her over the telephone to meet the demands of the accused otherwise he would be tortured and killed. The demand for ransom as made by Birju over the telephone on the first occasion stands corroborated by the deposition of the complainant who received the said telephoneConsidering the evidences adduced in the case, the learned Designated Court has come to the finding that the prosecution case was fully established that although the price for the piano had been paid by PW 3 to Accused 3 a day before when such piano was delivered to him, Girdhari Accused 3 acting on a day false pretext to realise the price of the said piano from Mithun Farm took Vaibhav to the said Mithun Farmhouse. Immediately after Vaibhav was brought by Girdhari to the said Mithun Farm, the other accused including the absconding accused Birju came down from the first floor and when Birju enquired as to whether the said boy was from Katyare family and Girdhari answered in the affirmative, Birju said that Girdhari had done an excellent job. Thereafter, attempt to realise two lakhs of rupees by way of ransom was made by the said accused including the absconding accused Birju and having failed to get any assurance from the mother of Vaibhav, who is PW 2 Meena, that rupees two lakhs would be paid as demanded, Birju took the decision that Vaibhav should be murdered to set an example as to what would happen if their demand was not met. Thereafter, the said boy was murdered after being very cruelly tortured and mercilessly assaulted by the accused. The learned Designated Court has come to the finding that the accused were guilty for the offences punishable under SectionIPC and Section302 read with SectionIBC and also for the offence under Section 3(2)(1) of TADA and he convicted all the said accused for the aforesaid offences. The learned Designated Court has sentenced each of the accused to suffer imprisonment for life on each count by indicating that the sentences would runAgainst the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Designated Court Accused 3 Girdhari has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 1995 before this Court and Accused 4 Major @ Ravindra Mogal Pande has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 1995. The State of Maharashtra has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 1993 praying for enhancement of sentence of the convicted accused in view of the grave nature of offences committed by them. All the said appeals have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment

Court's reasoning:
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