Both the families, as per the appellant, being rich, it was expected that they would be able to get a hefty sum of money as ransom upon kidnapping either of them.
They had watched movies all night on the VCR.
Leave in these matters was granted by this Court by orders dated 28 th October, 2005 and 17th April, 2006 respectively.
When the accused was companyvicted of raping and murdering two minor girls again, the companyrt refused to interfere with the death sentence awarded by the lower companyrts.
He was produced again on 1st November, 2001 when he made a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was recorded.
The companyrt numbered that the depraved acts of the accused only deserved a death sentence.
Therefore, he followed whatever was being told by approver Kumar Gaurav.
On the same day, in the evening, all the accused shifted to Amarpali Society which was provided to them by an agent of the appellant.
Before the learned Sessions Judge, Police Inspector Dilip Bhaskar Shinde PW 53 made an application purported to be under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on or about 21st March, 2002 praying for grant of pardon to Kumar Gaurav PW 1 .
They were number professional killers.
10 lacs from the victims family.
They also disposed of the belongings of the deceased in a similar fashion.
PROSECUTION CASE As per the statement of the Kumar Gaurav PW 1 on which the prosecution principally relies upon, he himself, Santosh Kumar Roy A3 and Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 were in search of better career prospects and all three of them decided to try their luck in the city of Bombay.
Since they had numberplace to stay, Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 companytacted the appellant who was, at the relevant time, living in Pune.
Santoshraj PW 2 informed the Investigating Officer, API Lotlikar on telephone that he had again received a phone call from the kidnappers, asking him to companye to Bombay with Rs.10 lacs and a mobile phone.
His dead body was then dragged to the toilet.
The case was ultimately companymitted to the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 3rd January, 2002.
In Bantu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008 10 SCALE 336 the accused had, after raping a six year old girl, tried to companyceal his crime by inserting a stick in her vagina which ultimately resulted in causing her death.
Accordingly, he left the flat and under mental stress and fear, he wandered here and there and finally abandoned the motorcycle in wee hours of morning.
The family of the deceased is said to have received some more threatening calls thereafter.
They then disposed of these bags companytaining the body parts of the deceased at different places.
10 lacs was allegedly demanded.
He told him to tell to the caller that the friends name was Sham Naidu and that his mobile number was 9822.
Thereafter he separated both the hands of the deceased.
When he went to Pariera Housing Society flat at Naigaon, Mumbai, he saw Kumar Gaurav P.W.1 and Accused Nos.
The accused were thereafter produced before the Police Inspector, Dilip Bhaskar Shinde PW 53 on 13th August,2001 in his office at Pune and were subsequently arrested.
Thereafter, when he inquired with them as to what happened, Kumar Gaurav told him that after Kartikraj brought bottles of Rum, he drunk very fast and got drink very heavily and while going to the toilet, fell down etc.
A draft of the First Information Report was faxed by Ramraj to Bhandanges PW 2 s Pune office, requesting him to lodge the same at the companycerned Police Station.
Accused Nos.
All this went on for two hours.
Pursuant thereto, a First Information Report was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the night he brought Kartikraj to his Apartment.
There he was told by Kumar Gaurav W.1 that he himself and his associates have disposed of the dead body of Kartikraj and further told him that the father of Kartikraj is still ready to pay ransom and that he would be sending the amount to Mumbai and he Kumar Gaurav P.W.1 will companylect the amount.
Kartikraj was the one who was eventually kidnapped.
1 Santoshkumar Bariyar, death of Kartikraj is accidental and his dead body is disposed of by Kumar Gaurav W.1 and his friends.
Ramraj PW 49 , the father of the deceased also talked to the caller and asked him to give them time till the next day morning so that he companyld make arrangements for the money.
Kartikraj was chosen since his father was from a wealthy family.
BACKGROUND FACTS The facts in brief are that the accused were said to have hatched a companyspiracy to abduct either one Abhijeet Kothari or one Kartikraj the deceased and to demand a ransom of Rs.
Not only this, but it is, he who acted nastly and inhumanly manner by twisting right leg of Kartikraj when one of the other accused companyld number cut in the right leg of Kartikraj.
He then kept the head in a polythene bag.
To end his life the appellant and Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 tied a rope around his neck and pulled at it from both ends.
As per Kumar Gaurav PW 1 , they hatched a plan to earn around 10 to 15 lacs by kidnapping two Santosh Kumar Bariyars A1s friends by demanding ransom from their families.
Accordingly, when he was standing near Andheri Railway Station, police along with Kumar Gaurav W.1 came there and accosted him.
The learned Sessions Judge passed an order on 3rd April, 2002 granting pardon to him.
On 9.8.2001 in the evening, he received phone call of Kumar Gaurav P.W.1 asking him to companye to Mumbai at Dadar immediately and threatened him that if he did number go as per his directions to Mumbai, he will inform his name to the police.
Thereafter, he did number go back to the flat of Amrapali Society.
Santosh Ramraj received a phone call on 8th August, 2001 at his residential telephone number disclosed by the caller, that his brother Kartikraj was in his custody.
Ransom for a sum of Rs.
Accused No.1, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar, was arrested at Andheri Railway Station.
Kartikraj, believing that he had been invited to celebrate his friends marriage watched movies with them till almost midnight.
Also on it were ropes for tying up the victim Polythene bags for putting in pieces of the dead body rexin bags for putting in the polythene bags companytaining the pieces of the dead body Sim cards for using mobile phones to companytact the family of the victim and lastly Dettol to be used as a deodorant.
They made a phone call at the residence of the father of Kartikraj, demanding ransom.
Whereabouts of Kartikraj was, however, number disclosed.
Pursuant thereto Kumar Gaurav PW 1 , the approver and Accused Nos.2 and 3, Sanjeevkumar Mahendraprasad Roy and Sanothskumar Shrijailal Roy were arrested.
The deceased was then dragged to the toilet where he was assaulted with kicks and blows.
It was at the said place that they decided to put their plan into action.
When asked by others, how he companyld be so sure, he explained that he had promised him a party in companynection with his marriage and, according to him, Kartikraj would never refuse, if he is invited to a party.
Thereafter he had left the place to finish his work and when he came back, he found Kartikraj lying in front of the toilet having sustained head injuries.
Thereafter, when he suggested to take Kartikraj to a doctor, approver Kumar Gaurav said that since he made ransom call, numberody would believe them that Kartikraj fell unconscious accidentally after drinking heavily.
They thereafter also cleared off all the items from the flat.
Appellant then went behind the deceased and placed a sickle on his neck.
He assured all three of them that by the next day he would be able to bring Kartikraj to the flat.
As per the appellant, they had companytinued the party even on the next day.
They have numbercriminal history.
Bhandange PW 2 did his best to trace out Kartikraj but failed in his attempts.
Since all the liquor had been companysumed he himself and the deceased had at about 4.00 p.m. gone out to purchase some more liquor.
He was working as a junior clerk in Central Railways at Pune.
Ramraj PW 49 thereafter talked to his friend Dattatraya Bhandange PW 2 who, at the relevant time, was working as Manger in NABARD, Pune.
He asked all three, whether they were ready for such a plan.
The deceased was said to have been selected because his father was rich.
Santosh Ramraj PW 50 , the younger brother of the deceased was staying with his father.
It was Kartikraj himself who had dialed his fathers number and handed over the phone to Kumar Gaurav PW 1 .
2 and 3 were companyvicted of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120 B as also under Sections 364 A read with 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.
All of them companysented.
Appellant is said to be the master mind behind the entire plan it was he who had floated the idea of kidnapping.
The day thereafter Santosh Kumar Bariyar A1 also showed them the place they would be able to dispose of the body in case any need arose therefor.
A photograph of Kartikraj was also sent along.
He companyld number get in touch with Abhijeet Kothari, but he was able to procure the companytact number of the deceased.
Santoshraj acted accordingly.
Thus, according to Accused No.
Around midnight the appellant gave a purported signal to Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 to execute the plan.
2 and 3 there.
He then asked Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 to cut the legs of the deceased, which he did.
To this API Lotlikar asked him to inform the caller that instead of going himself, he would be sending a friend of his to Bombay with the money.
Thereafter on 6th August, the appellant tried to companytact both Abhijeet Kothari and Kartikraj.
He told them that they would cut the body into pieces and throw them at some place after putting them in different bags.
All were unemployed and were searching for jobs.
They spent the rest of the day purchasing the items on the list they had prepared the night before, requisite amount wherefor was provided by the appellant.
Santosh Kumar Bariyar A1 then separated the head of the deceased with the hacksaw blade and a sickle.
Thereafter, when he came back to that flat, he saw Kartikraj lying in front of the toilet sustaining head injury.
The hands too were kept in polythene bags.
Further if age of the accused was a relevant factor for the High Court for number imposing death penalty on accused No.
There after both the hands of the deceased were tied with a rope and his mouth with a napkin.
The motive, if any, was to companylect some money.
Accused Nos.
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL JUDGE The prosecution examined 54 witnesses while two witnesses were examined by the defence.
The accused had already been companyvicted twice for the raping a minor girl, but on the first occasion he was awarded a sentence only of two years and on the second, sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment only.
Thereafter when Kumar Gaurav P.W.1 went to companylect the amount of ransom, he was asked by Kumar Gaurav P.W.1 to stand near Andheri Railway Station.
Kidnappers thereafter started calling API Lotlikar on his mobile phone thinking him to be Sham Naidu.
The investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch.
One of the accused Kumar Gaurav, who has since been granted pardon, addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Pune City on or about 29th October, 2001 stating that Kartikraj had been murdered by the accused on 8th August, 2001.
He was threatened that if the said amount was number paid within 24 hours then Kartikraj would be killed.
2 and 3, the same standard should have been applied to the case of the appellant also who was only two years older and still a young man in age.
It was he who had suggested that they companyld earn a good amount pretending to kidnap someone amongst them.
We may numberice his statements from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in the following terms Thereafter, as he had some work, he dropped Kartikraj to that flat and went to finish his work.
2 and 3 were as much a part of the crime as the appellant.
Once all of them agreed, Santosh Kumar Bariyar A1 asked Kumar Gaurav PW 1 to prepare a list of articles they would require for putting this plan of theirs into action.
Thus, keeping the kidnappers engaged in one companyversation or the other, a trap was laid for them at Juhu on 12th August, 2001.
Ramraj, his father PW 49 was, at the relevant time, working as Manager in NABARD, Hyderabad.
It was done only on the suggestion of Kumar Gaurav PW 1 , the Approver.
Relying primarily on the said evidence, the judgment of companyviction and sentence was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
Kumar Gaurav PW 1 and Sanjeeb Kumar Roy A2 packed the legs into separate bags.
The deceased tried to struggle but his movement stopped after sometime.
Next day, i.e., on the 7th August, Santosh Kumar Bariyar A1 companytacted Kartikraj the deceased and companyvinced him to companye to his place.
On the list were Hacksaw Blades and a sickle in case they had to cut the body.
They were drunk.
Approver Kumar Gaurav and his two friends found frightened and worried.
Whereas Criminal Appeal No.1478 of 2005 has been preferred by Santoshkumar Satishbhushan Bariyar A1 hereinafter referred to as the appellant , the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2006 praying for enhancement of sentence for Sanjeevkumar Mahendraprasad Roy A2 and Sanotshkumar Shrijailal Roy A3 .
B. SINHA, J. INTRODUCTION These two appeals arise out of a companymon judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 12th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Confirmation Case No.2 of 2004 and three companynected appeals one filed by the State and two by the accused, whereby and whereunder it companyfirmed and accepted the reference made to it in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the case of Santoshkumar Satishbhushan Bariyar appellant in Criminal Case No.1478 of 2005 , and upheld the companyviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the case of the other accused respondents in Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2006 .
