Bombay HC upholds life sentence of two men held for kidnapping 5-year-old – India Today

Bombay High Court has upheld the life sentence of two men who had kidnapped a 5-year-old boy in 2010 from Pune. However, while giving the benefit of doubt, the court acquitted the brother and mother of the main accused from whose house the ransom money was found.

The HC bench dismissed the appeals against the conviction of accused Sandeep Kamble and his friend Nitin Samudre.

Sandeep’s brother, Bharat Kamble, and mother, Vimal Kamble, were acquitted.

THE ARGUMENT

The prosecution case, argued by additional public prosecutor Geeta Mulekar, was that Sandeep and Nitin abducted a five-year-old child from Chinchwad, on the morning of April 9, 2010, in a TATA Indica car. They called his mother and demanded a ransom of Rs 15 lakh for the release of the boy.

The mother, who could arrange for Rs 6 lakh, was asked to board a local train and throw the bag containing money at a particular spot. In the meantime, the mother had also informed the police, so the investigators kept a tracking device inside the bag.

The money bag was tracked to the house of the Kambles and the bundles of currency notes, on which some of the notes were marked, were traced in that house.

The boy returned home at around 7.45 pm on April 12. The accused were arrested and later charge-sheeted. During the trial, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The defence of the accused was total denial.

The Sessions Court of Pune on December 27, 2012, convicted the accused of commission of an offence punishable under sections 364-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to life imprisonment.

APPEAL IN BOMBAY HC

In the high court, the advocate representing Bharat and Vimal submitted that they were acquitted of the charges of commission of major offences. The only charge proved against them was of concealing stolen property, but the cash amount was recovered from the house which was jointly occupied by them along with Sandeep. Therefore, their conviction under that section is not sustainable.

Meanwhile, there is no reliable evidence against Sandeep, the advocate argued. The boy did not identify him in court. Sandeep and Nitin, however, had been identified by the boy during the identification parade conducted by the police. The advocate submitted that the evidence of the identification parade can at best only be a corroborating piece of evidence, but it does not help the prosecution case.

The government pleader, GP Mulekar, on the other hand, argued that the boy was only 8 years old when he was examined in court and, therefore, it was understandable that he could not identify Sandeep and Nitin, “but that does not wash away the identification of these two accused at the test identification parade.” The court also saw that before the kidnapping, Sandeep had stolen a car and a bike. The owners of the vehicles had registered FIRs in this regard.

While going through the evidence, the bench of Justices SS Shinde and SV Kotwal said, “The incident is sufficiently proved. The question is whether the accused were involved in the crime.” The court saw that there was seriously incriminating evidence against Sandeep in the form of call data records of the phone which was used to call the boy’s mother. A statement of the boy had also nailed Sandeep and Nitin, who had stated that while he was kidnapped, Nitin was taking care of him, who he referred to as Balu Kaka. A cousin of Nitin had also reported that the boy had been brought to his house by both friends for a night and they left the house the next day.

The statement of Nitin’s cousin was the most important according to the bench which proved the case against Sandeep and his friend. “In our view, evidence of this witness is the most incriminating circumstance against both the accused. He has clarified as to how the boy was referring to both these accused as Raju kaka and Balu kaka. Boy was kept in his house,” noted the bench.

However, while acquitting Sandeep’s brother and mother, the court noted that the Sessions Court had acquitted them of the main charges of kidnapping. They were convicted under section 414 (assisting in the concealment of stolen property) of the IPC. The marked currency notes were found in the house which was jointly occupied by Vimal along with her two sons. The court stated that the home was not exclusively owned by Bharat and Vimal.

Sandeep had collected the ransom money. “He was the main offender. He had brought that cash home and kept it in his house. Therefore, there is scope to believe that Bharat and Vimal had not concealed that cash. Sandeep had kept it in his own house, which was also occupied by accused Bharat and Vimal. Therefore, to that extent, we are inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to Bharat and Vimal,” said the bench.

READ MORE: Guwahati: Man stabbed in Basistha over petty argument, hospitalised

READ MORE: Leopard spotted in wheat field in Raipur village, farmers panic | Watch