STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs LAHU @ LAHUKUMAR RAMCHANDRA DHEKHANE
Bench: CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000218-000218 / 2008
Diary number: 16269 / 2005
Advocates: ASHA GOPALAN NAIR Vs
(MRS. ) VIPIN GUPTA
Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 218 OF 2008
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT VERSUS
LAHU @ LAHUKUMAR RAMCHANDRA DHEKHANE …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
This is an appeal by special leave by the State
of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal.
Said judgment of acquittal has been passed in
appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court of
Bombay has acquitted the respondent under Sections
Page 2
363, 364A, 386, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code. The trial court, however, had held the
respondent Lahu @ Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekhane
guilty of all the charges.
According to the prosecution, Sanket, son of
Suryakant Bhande, PW-30 was studying in Junior K.G.
in M.E.S. High School. On 29th of November, 1999
Sanket went to school at 9 A.M. When he did not
return, the father went to the school where he met
Sanket’s Class Teacher, Anjali Walimbe (PW-4), who
informed him that he left the school with a person
aged about 25 years at 12.30 P.M. In the
meanwhile, Pratibha, the mother of the child
received a ransom call promising to release the
child on payment of ransom of Rs. 1 lakh. A report
was accordingly lodged. On 6th of December, 1999 at
11.00 A.M. another ransom call came demanding a sum
of Rs. 1 lakh from the father for releasing the
child from captivity and the ransom amount was to
be delivered at specified place. The caller gave
2
Page 3
threat to the father of dire consequences in case
police was informed. Despite the threat, the
police was informed and the father went to the
specified place with the ransom money, kept the
money but nobody turned up till about 2.45 P.M.
The father then received a call from his cousin on
his mobile at 3.30 P.M. asking him to return to his
house. On reaching there, the father was told by
his cousin that another anonymous call had come
complaining that the place where the money was kept
was surrounded by the police and, hence, the ransom
amount be kept at Katraj Ghat near Hotel Rama. The
caller gave specific instruction as to the place
and the manner in which the bag containing the
ransom amount to be kept. This time, the father
went without informing the police, kept the bag
containing the ransom amount at the specified place
and sounded whistle as directed. After 10 minutes
when the father went to the spot he found that the
bag was not there. Thereafter, the search was made
but neither the child nor anybody was found there.
3
Page 4
The family suffered the pain for a long time as
they could not get any information with regard to
the child. However, suddenly after about 6 months
on 5th of June, 2000 the father received a call on
his mobile from Pune but it got disconnected. The
father, in order to record the conversation, had
attached a tape-recorder to his mobile. After some
time, he received another phone call from Pune
asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for
return of the child and an impression was given
that the child is safe in Mumbai. The caller
further informed him that the time and the place
for payment of the ransom money shall be informed
on the next day. As communicated, on the next day
at about 12 noon the father received a phone call
on his mobile and he was asked to deliver the
ransom amount near a hill at a specified place at
Pune-Ambegaon Bypass. In order to secure release
of the child, the father put the bag containing
currency notes at 3.00 P.M. at the specified spot.
4
Page 5
At that time, the police officers were standing at
a distance. Within five minutes the bag was taken
away by somebody. At about 3.45 P.M. on the same
day the father received a phone call on his mobile
from a place called Hadapsar from Pune and the
caller threatened to kill his another son named
Saurav, who was studying in IIIrd Standard in the
same school, as he had not obeyed the instruction
and informed the police. The father, with the help
of the police, found out the STD Booth from where
the phone call was made. The owner of the booth,
Ganesh Shinde, PW-26 told them that a person had
come on Suzuki Samurai Motorbike who had made the
call.
On 17th of July, 2000 respondent Lahu @
Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekhane, hereinafter referred
to as ‘the accused’, was arrested in a case in
which the ransom call and the details and the
manner in which ransom money was to be delivered
were the same.
5
Page 6
During the course of investigation it
transpired that on 29th of November, 1999 the
accused went to Sanket’s school at 12.30 P.M. and
since nobody had come from the family to pick him
up, the class teacher Anjali Walimbe, PW-4 was
waiting for somebody to come and pick him up. At a
little distance another teacher Swati Joshi, PW-9
was taking the class in the verandah of the school.
At about 12.30 P.M., the accused came to the school
and called Sanket whereupon he went running towards
the accused and on enquiry by the class teacher the
child answered that he knew the accused. In this
way the accused had taken away the innocent non-
suspecting child with him. It had further
transpired that the accused, after kidnapping the
child from the school, had gone to paan shop of
Ramesh Gadhave, PW-5 and purchased some chocolates
for the child. Thereafter, the accused had taken
the child to a place called Wai and made a ransom
6
Page 7
call from the telephone booth of Sulbha
Kadane, PW-28.
Thereafter, on the same day or a little later
he killed the child and made phone calls from
different telephone booths of Sanjay Salunkhe, PW-
15, Ganesh Shinde, PW-26 and Sulbha Kadane, PW-28.
The statement given by the accused led to the
recovery of the bag and the shirt of the child
which were identified by the parents in the test
identification parade. During the course of
investigation it also came to the notice that the
accused has opened an account in a bank and
deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. In this way the
accused was alleged to have kidnapped the child for
ransom, killed him and later on destroyed the
evidence.
Accordingly, the police submitted the
charge-sheet and the accused was ultimately
committed to the Court of Sessions where charges
7
Page 8
under Sections 360, 364A, 386, 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code were framed against him. He
denied having committed the offence and claimed to
be tried. He pleaded false implication and his
defence was that after he was apprehended by the
police from Ambabai Temple, the following day, he
was shown to two teachers, Anjali Walimbe, PW-4 and
Swati Joshi, PW-9 who stated that the accused was
not involved in the crime.
From the facts narrated above it is evident
that the case of the prosecution largely rests on
circumstantial evidence. The trial court, on
appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the
prosecution, came to the conclusion that the chain
of circumstances proved clearly points towards the
guilt of the accused and accordingly, he was held
guilty for kidnapping and ransom, murder as also
for the destruction of the evidence. However, on
appeal the High Court doubted the evidence of both
the teachers and observed that it is probable that
8
Page 9
they identified the accused from the photograph
published in the newspaper. The High Court
rejected the evidence of Ramesh Gadhave, PW-5, the
paanwala, on the ground that a paanwala attending
to various customers on a day could not be in a
position to identify the accused who had gone with
a child some eight months ago. As regards the
entries of the Telephone Department showing the
calls made to the father, opening of bank account
and deposit of money in the bank account, in the
opinion of the High Court, though creates suspicion
but that cannot form the basis of conviction and
the suspicious circumstances become insignificant
once testimony of both the teachers becomes
doubtful. Accordingly, the High Court acquitted
the accused.
As stated earlier, aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the
special leave petition and while issuing notice,
this Court, by order dated 9th of September, 2005
9
Page 10
stayed the operation of the impugned order of
acquittal rendered by the High Court. Thereafter,
this Court granted leave against the impugned order
on 3rd of January, 2008 and directed for continuance
of the interim order passed earlier till the
disposal of the appeal. The result thereof is that
the judgment and order of conviction is operating
against the accused.
Evidence of Anjali Walimbe, PW-4 and Swati
Joshi, PW-9, the two teachers working in the M.E.S.
High School are of vital importance. Their evidence
has been accepted by the trial court but has been
rejected by the High Court, hence, we consider it
expedient to consider their evidence in little
detail. Anjali Walimbe, PW-4 has stated in her
evidence that Sanket, aged about three years was
studying in Mini K.G. Class of which she was the
class teacher. She has further deposed in her
evidence that Sanket had come to the school on the
fateful day and when nobody turned up to take him
10
Page 11
back till noon, she brought the child in the
verandah of the school. According to her evidence,
at 12.30 P.M. the accused came in the school,
called Sanket; whereupon he ran towards the
accused. On enquiry, according to this witness,
Sanket told her that he knew the accused and in
this way Sanket went along with him. She has also
stated the manner in which she identified the
accused in the test identification parade held by
Jyostna Vidhasagar Hirmukhe, Tahsildar, PW-27, on
16th of September, 2000. In the cross-examination
she had admitted that after accused was arrested,
his photograph was published in the newspaper and
on the same day the test identification parade was
held. Similarly, Swati Joshi, PW-9 had deposed
about the manner in which Sanket was taken by the
accused. She also testified about the
identification of the accused in the test
identification parade held on 16th of September,
2000. In the cross-examination she denied the
suggestion that she had identified the accused at
11
Page 12
the instance of the police. As observed earlier,
the High Court has rejected the evidence of these
two witnesses on its finding that the possibility
of their identification on the basis of the
photograph published in the newspaper cannot be
ruled out. We find ourselves unable to subscribe
to this view. The two teachers had neither any
grudge to grind against the accused nor anything
has been suggested by the defence in the cross-
examination. They have clearly stated in the
evidence that they identified the accused in the
test identification parade which was conducted by
the Tahsildar, PW-27. She has stated about the
manner in which test identification parade was
conducted and the manner in which these two
witnesses identified the accused. These two
teachers are absolutely independent persons. We do
not find any earthly reason as to why they would
falsely identify the accused in the test
identification parade. We are of the opinion that
12
Page 13
the identification of the accused by these teachers
cannot be doubted.
Ramesh Gadhave, PW-5 is the paan shop owner,
who has stated in his evidence that the accused had
come to his shop along with a child between 1.00
P.M. to 1.30 P.M., purchased four chocolates, gave
those to the child and went towards Satara side.
In the cross-examination he admitted that he is not
expected to remember who comes to his paan shop and
taking this into account, the High Court has
rejected his evidence. We find ourselves unable to
endorse the conclusion of the High Court. This
witness has emphatically stated that the accused
had come to his paan shop along with a child who
was weeping, purchased chocolates and gave them to
the child. He may not be expected to remember each
and every customer but fact of the matter is that
in the case in hand he had identified the accused
and, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, his evidence is not fit to be rejected
13
Page 14
only on the ground pointed out by the High Court.
The STD Booth owners from where the accused had
made the calls have also identified the accused.
Not only that, the discovery of various articles at
the instance of the accused, the entries of the
Telephone Department showing the calls made to the
father, opening of the bank account and the deposit
of money coupled with the evidence of the two
teachers, the paanwala and the STD Booth owners, in
our opinion, complete the chain and point towards
the guilt of the accused. In the circumstances, we
are of the opinion that the chain of circumstances
clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and
the High Court erred in acquitting him.
We may herein observe that acquittal of an
accused who has committed the crime causes grave
injustice in the same manner as that of conviction
of an innocent person.
14
Page 15
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside
the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
and restore that of the trial court.
………..………..……………………………….J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
………………….………………………………….J. (KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 6, 2013.
15