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.
On enquiry, according to this witness, Sanket told her that he knew the accused and in this way Sanket went along with him.
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.
40,000/ .
The family suffered the pain for a long time as they companyld number get any information with regard to the child.
She also testified about the identification of the accused in the test identification parade held on 16th of September, 2000.
After some time, he received another phone call from Pune asking him to pay 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.
During the companyrse of investigation it transpired that on 29th of November, 1999 the accused went to Sankets school at 12.30 P.M. and since numberody had companye from the family to pick him up, the class teacher Anjali Walimbe, PW 4 was waiting for somebody to companye and pick him up.
On 29th of November, 1999 Sanket went to school at 9 A.M. When he did number return, the father went to the school where he met Sankets 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.
In the cross examination she denied the suggestion that she had identified the accused at the instance of the police.
During the companyrse of investigation it also came to the numberice that the accused has opened an account in a bank and deposited a sum of Rs.
As companymunicated, on the next day at about 12 numbern 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.
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.
At a little distance another teacher Swati Joshi, PW 9 was taking the class in the verandah of the school.
The trial companyrt, however, had held the respondent Lahu Lahukumar Ramchandra Dhekhane guilty of all the charges.
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 number obeyed the instruction and informed the police.
Within five minutes the bag was taken away by somebody.
On 6th of December, 1999 at 11.00 A.M. another ransom call came demanding a sum of Rs.
Their evidence has been accepted by the trial companyrt but has been rejected by the High Court, hence, we companysider it expedient to companysider their evidence in little detail.
In this way the accused was alleged to have kidnapped the child for ransom, killed him and later on destroyed the evidence.
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 number involved in the crime.
He denied having companymitted the offence and claimed to be tried.
The caller further informed him that the time and the place for payment of the ransom money shall be informed on the next day.
After 10 minutes when the father went to the spot he found that the bag was number there.
Thereafter, this Court granted leave against the impugned order on 3rd of January, 2008 and directed for companytinuance of the interim order passed earlier till the disposal of the appeal.
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.
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.
At that time, the police officers were standing at a distance.
According to her evidence, at 12.30 P.M. the accused came in the school, called Sanket whereupon he ran towards the accused.
The father, with the help of the police, found out the STD Booth from where the phone call was made.
As stated earlier, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the special leave petition and while issuing numberice, this Court, by order dated 9th of September, 2005 stayed the operation of the impugned order of acquittal rendered by the High Court.
Accordingly, the police submitted the charge sheet and the accused was ultimately companymitted to the Court of Sessions where charges under Sections 360, 364A, 386, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him.
According to the prosecution, Sanket, son of Suryakant Bhande, PW 30 was studying in Junior K.G. in M.E.S. High School.
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.
The caller gave specific instruction as to the place and the manner in which the bag companytaining the ransom amount to be kept.
In order to secure release of the child, the father put the bag companytaining currency numberes at 3.00 P.M. at the specified spot.
The caller gave threat to the father of dire companysequences in case police was informed.
Said judgment of acquittal has been passed in appeal.
In this way the accused had taken away the innocent number suspecting child with him.
Despite the threat, the police was informed and the father went to the specified place with the ransom money, kept the money but numberody turned up till about 2.45 P.M. The father then received a call from his companysin on his mobile at 3.30 P.M. asking him to return to his house.
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.
Similarly, Swati Joshi, PW 9 had deposed about the manner in which Sanket was taken by the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court acquitted the accused.
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.
Thereafter, the search was made but neither the child number anybody was found there.
This time, the father went without informing the police, kept the bag companytaining the ransom amount at the specified place and sounded whistle as directed.
1,50,000/ for return of the child and an impression was given that the child is safe in Mumbai.
The owner of the booth, Ganesh Shinde, PW 26 told them that a person had companye on Suzuki Samurai Motorbike who had made the call.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court of Bombay has acquitted the respondent under Sections 363, 364A, 386, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
On reaching there, the father was told by his companysin that another anonymous call had companye companyplaining 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.
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.
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.
Thereafter, the accused had taken the child to a place called Wai and made a ransom call from the telephone booth of Sulbha Kadane, PW 28.
She has further deposed in her evidence that Sanket had companye to the school on the fateful day and when numberody turned up to take him back till numbern, she brought the child in the verandah of the school.
PRASAD, J. This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of acquittal.
1 lakh.
A report was accordingly lodged.
The father, in order to record the companyversation, had attached a tape recorder to his mobile.
