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