Case: Babu Kuttan R. Pillai  Vs. State Of Maharashtra

2. The gist of the prosecution case relevant for the purpose of this proceeding may be stated thus :3. With the growth of industry, commerce and trade in and around the city of Mumbai which generates substantial quantity of wealth, there has been increase of organised activities by gangs ofto extract money from affluent sections of society like developers, hoteliers and other businessmen by putting them in fear of death and then to demand substantial sums of money commonly known as "Khadani" i.e. protection money. One such gang was operating in the city under Amar Naik @ `Bhai, who died a couple of years before the decision in the case at an encounter with the police. The prosecution alleged that in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy between 15.1.1994 to 16.5.1994 the accused persons and others of the gang embarked upon preparatory acts like procuring the information about the names of the builders of M/s Kalpataru Construction Company which was engaged in developing a property at Pali Hill, named "Nakshatra Building".Sudhir Tambe was the Seniorof the company with its head office at Nariman Point. He used to sit in the6 Pachapur, Civil Engineer, was an employee of the company who used to remain at the site to supervise the construction. As the prosecution story runs, on 15.4.1994 between 11.30 a.m. and 12.00 noon whilewas on duty at the construction site, accused No. 3, Nitin Vasant Venugurlekar armed with revolver and accused No. 4 Rajindera @ Rajan Mahadeo Margaj armed with a chopper and accused No. 5 Jayendra @ Jai Anandrao Jadhav also armed with a chopper visited the site of "Nakshatra Building"; they threatened the workers at the site, forcibly broughtPachapur in a room on the ground floor and manhandled him. Accused No. 3, pointing a revolver at him demanded the name, address and telephone number of the builders.disclosed the name ofTambe and gave his telephone number to them. The accused then asked him to go to the office of the builders at Nariman Point and make the arrangement for a telephonic talk with Tambe.rushed to the office and told Tambe of what had happened at the construction site. This was followed by telephonic calls from the accused who wanted to speak to Tambe. Attempts were made byto avoid any discussion with the gangsters. Two or three days thereafter when the accused got Tambe on the telephone he (Tambe) gave them some other telephone numbers and asked them to contact those persons including one D.N. Ghosh, the Security Contractor. Eight/ten days thereafter again a telephone call was made to the office of Tambe which was received bywho was informed by the person making the call that they could not get D.N. Ghosh on the telephone numbers furnished by Tambe. Therafterhanded over the receiver to Tambe. This incident was followed by several threats given by the gangsters to workers and also repeated telephone calls made to the Head Office of the company to contact Tambe. The staff of the site office absented from work resulting in virtual closure of construction activity.4. On 11.5.1994 the deceased Sanjay Patil telephoned to Tambe and warned him that he is wasting time and should meet him without further delay. After some days there was one more similar call from Sanjay Patil and he asked Tambe that he should talk to Bhai and saying so he handed over the receiver to another person who gave his identity as Amar Naik (since deceased), who told Tambe that he should pay Rs. 10 lacs. The later pleaded his inability to pay such a heavy sum and after some discussion agreed to pay Rs. 5 lacs. He was asked to come to "Nakshatra Building" site on 16.5.1994 along with money. In the meantime Tambe informed all the happenings to the Addl. Commissioner of Police Mr. Sanjeev Dayal and the then Dy. Commissioner of Police of Zone VII Mr. Rajanish Sheth within whose jurisdiction Khar Police Station fell.5. On 16.5.1994 at about 12.00 noon the deceased Sanjay Patil telephoned Tambe and inquired from him as to what he was going to do about the payment and then Tambe replied that he will be leaving office at about 2.00 p.m. for Pali Hill. Sanjay Patil cautioned him that he should not make any haste and he should wait for his call so that he will take necessary instructions from his boss i.e. Amar Naik. At about 2.00 p.m. on that day there was a telephone call from Sanjay Patil telling that Tambe should not meet him at the "Nakshatra Building" site but instead he should meet him near the Ceaser Palace Hotel. This telephonic conversion wasTambe was instructed on telephone that his man shall carry a white plastic bag containing the amount of Rs. 5 lacs and shall wait near the entrance gate of Ceaser Palace Hotel and the person coming to collect the said bag will introduce himself as "Me Rawancha Manus Hai". Tambe informed to the DCP all these happenings and handed over the tape in which the telephonic conversation was recorded by him. The DCP had made the arrangements to keep a regular watch near the building site.Sunil Deshmukh was deployed to wait in cognito near the gate of the Ceaser Palace Hotel and to carry the white plastic bag containing bundles of papers which would give an appearance like the bundles of current notes. The other officers, who were also in cognito, had taken their position at strategic points near the hotel. At about 4.05 p.m. Sunil Deshmukh noticed that one red coloured Marunti van halted in front of the Ceaser Palace Hotel. He noticed three persons getting down from the said van. Those three persons were coming in this direction, and the van went ahead 50 to 60 feets and halted there. The deceased Sanjay Patil and the accused No. 7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad got down from the said van and accused No. 6 Mohamed Ismail was sitting on the driver seat in the van. The three accused persons i.e. accused No. 1 Babu Kuttan Pillai, accused No. 2 Umesh @ Babu Bhatt and the absconding accused Ramchandra Negi approachedHe enquired fromabout his identity and whenreplied that he has been sent by Tambe Sahib.Sunil Deshmukh then asked that person "who are you" (Tum Kaun Hai) and then the accused No. 2 Umesh Bhatt told him that "Hum Rawan Ke Aadmi Hai" . Thereafter accused No. 1 Babu Kuttan extended his hand towardswho delivered the bag to him. At this juncture the police officers who were standing nearby in cognito rushed to the place and surrounded the three persons. When the police officers were trying to overpower them the deceased Sanjay Patil @ Avinsash Amanna and the accused No. 7 Bapu Sidhram Gaikwad came forward with revolvers in their hands and threatened the police party by saying they should leave their men or else the policemen will be killed. Saying so they fired in the direction of the police party. At this pointtook out his revolver and pointed it in the direction of the accused and told him "we are all policemen and you should throw away your revolvers else we fill fire." Even then the accused persons fired some rounds in the direction of the police party, thenand one other officer tried to rush towards them but they sat in the said Maruti van and sped away from the place.6. After the situation claimed down, the police drew the panchnames Ex.22 in presence of some witnesses and conducted personal search of the three culprits. On such search accused No. 1 Babu Kuttan Pillai was found to possess the plastic bag containing the paper bundles (Art. 1), accused No. 2 Umesh Bhatt was found to possess a big Rampuri knife which was hidden at the waist under the pant by left side.7. After completion of investigation the police submitted theThe three persons at the spot were remanded to the police custody. Subsequently, the other accused persons were also arrested. They were put to test identification parade. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record convicted accused No. 1 Babu Kuttan Ramkrishna Pillai and the accused No. 2 Umesh @ Babu Purshottam Bhatt for the office punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months. They were also convicted under Section 120B of the IPC but no separate sentence was passed. They were acquitted of the other offences with which they were charged. The remaining accused persons i.e. accused Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeal assailing the judgment passed by the Designated Court at Brihan Mumbai, convicting/sentencing them as above.

Court's reasoning:
8. On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we find that the learned trial Judge has considered the entire case led by the prosecution in great detail and after discussing the charges framed against the appellants under Sections 3(2), 3(3) and 3(5) of TADA Act, rejected the prosecution case on that count. Thereafter the learned trial Judge in paragraph 17 onwards considered the question of what offence was made out against the appellants. After a detailed discussion of the relevant evidence placed by the prosecution and after examining it in the light of the contentions on behalf of the defence, the learned trial Judge believed the testimony ofKamble and came to hold that the appellants are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sectionand the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 IPC and convicted them thereunder and imposed the punishable as noted earlier.9. We have perused the evidence of these witnesses. We do not find that the appreciation of evidence made by the learned trial Judge suffers from any illegality nor can findings recorded by him be said to be perverse. The learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence led by the prosecution against the appellants and for rejecting the contentions raised by the defence. We are not satisfied that the judgment of the learned trial Judge calls for interference by this Court.On a reading of the judgment under challenge, we find that the learned trial Judge has considered the entire case led by the prosecution in great detail and after discussing the charges framed against the appellants under Sections 3(2), 3(3) and 3(5) of TADA Act, rejected the prosecution case on that count. Thereafter the learned trial Judge in paragraph 17 onwards considered the question of what offence was made out against the appellants. After a detailed discussion of the relevant evidence placed by the prosecution and after examining it in the light of the contentions on behalf of the defence, the learned trial Judge believed the testimony ofe and came to hold that the appellants are guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Sectionand the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 IPC and convicted them thereunder and imposed the punishable as noted earlier.