Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. It is crucial to note here that Bhimrao (P.W.No.5) identified Appellant No.1 from amongst the other appellants as the person who accompanied him in the night during the period of confinement at Nashik. He identified Appellant No.2 as the person who ran from his room when the police reached the spot. There is nothing on record to discredit aforesaid piece of evidence of Bhimrao (P.W.N.o.5). The said identification also gains importance in the light of the testimony in respect of the raid and rescue operation carried out by PI Govind Pawar (P.W.No.20) by conducting panchanama (Exh.164). The testimony of Prakash (P.W.No.9) as mentioned is found to be natural in its course. It is found to be inspiring confidence. The evidence of Prakash (P.W.No.9) that the police authorities seized two pistols from Appellant Nos.1 and 2 and they told their names during the course of seizure has unshattered. He has also deposed that the police found two bags in the bedroom where Appellant Nos.1, 2 and Bhimrao (P.W.No.5) were spotted. The said bag contained three knives, ten cotton swabs, three sticking tapes, screw driver, ply, spanner and gloves etc., which were seized by the police authorities in his presence. He also stated that three live cartridges were found in the revolver. Police also seized two Airtel SIM cards, two mobiles of Samsung and Nokia make. He also testified that the police authorities verified the mobile numbers by inserting the SIMs in the mobiles, which corroborates panchanama and testimony of PI Govind Pawar (P.W.No.20). More importantly he correctly identified Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in the Court. He identified the seized articles in the panchanama viz: the pistols, cartridges, mobiles, SIM cards, snives, spanner, screw driver, etc and their wrappers in the Court.

30. At this juncture, the testimony of Tejpal (P.W.No.6), Rajesh (P.W.No.7) and Call Details Reports ("CDR" for short) become significant. During the course of investigation the police authorities got information in respect of the mobile numbers from which the calls were made at the residence of Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4). The testimony of the informant that her land-line telephone number of 25899151 is undisputed. Tejpal (P.W.No.6) deposed that he had sold some SIM cards to Rajesh Surali (P.W.No.7). He mentioned their numbers as 9890287970, 9890286920 and 9890287912. Rajesh Surali (P.W.No.7) testified that he had never subscribed for the aforesaid mobile numbers. He deposed that he had lost his driving licence in the year 2003 and hence he lodged FIR with Kulgaon Police Station on 26.8.2003. The sum and substance of his testimony is that on the basis of driving licence of this witness, someone else had obtained the mobile SIMs in his name. It is noticed that mobile No.9890286920 was found with Appellant Nos.1 and 2 during the course of rescue operation on 17.11.2005. It is, therefore, clear that in respect of both the SIM cards seized from Appellant nos.1 and 2, they were never the subscribers. The police authorities have collected the CDRs from Airtel in respect of these numbers. Mobile No.9890285310, which is found at the time of raid with Appellant Nos.1 and 2 is in the name of one Marood Shaikh as per communication dated 17.11.2005 from Airtel (Exh.274). On page No.13 of CDR (Exh.274), it is noticed that from the mobile No.9890285310 two calls were made on 16.11.2005 at 10.54 a.m and 10.55 a.m respectively. It corroborates the testimony of the informant that she had received a call from the kidnappers at about 10.30 a.m. Upon further scrutiny it is noticed that as much as 16 calls were made from this mobile to 020-25899151. It is already established in the testimony of the informant that it is the residential land-line telephone number of Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4). This, therefore, directly and conclusively shows involvement of Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in the matter of kidnapping of Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4). This also corroborates the testimony of the informant that she had received threatening calls from the kidnappers demanding ransom of Rs.15,00,000/- along with the threats that in case the demands were not fulfilled Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4) would be murdered. Since the SIM card for mobile 9890285310 was seized from the custody of Appellant Nos.1 and 2 during the case of raid conducted by PI Govind Pawar (P.W.No.20) and as it is established from CDR (Exh.274) that in all 16 calls were made from said mobile to the residential telephone line of Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4), it is obvious that these calls were made by Appellant Nos.1 and 2 for demanding ransom from the family members of Mohan Gunjal (P.W.No.4).

34. In order to prove the criminal conspiracy against the appellants, prosecution has heavily relied on the evidence of witnesses; Tejpal Zumbarmal Jain (P.W.No.6), Rajesh Shamji Surali (P.W.No.7), Ravikiran Mohanrao Mane (P.W.No.8). According to Tejpal, he had sold 3 SIM cards to Rajesh Surali (P.W.No.7). He gave a SIM Nos.9890287970, 9820288920 and 9890287912. Out of that Mobile No.9890287920 was seized from the appellants after raid. To prove the source of the said mobile phones, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Rajesh Surali. He deposed that he never purchased SIM cards from Tejpal (P.W.No.5). According to him, in the year 2003, he lost motor driving licence. It appears from the evidence of Tejpal that he sold the above 3 SIM cards on the basis of driving licence but Rajesh Surali had denied to have purchased the said SIM cards. In fact, said SIM cards shown to have sold in the name of Rajesh but those were collected by different person whose identity was not proved by the prosecution

35. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Appellant No.5 was using one of the SIM cards which was in the name of Ravikiran Mohanrao Mane (P.W.No.8). Hence police enquired with him. He deposed that he had a bank account with Shahu Bank. His passbook consist of his photograph affixed on it. Police took the witness Ravi to the shop of one Ghadge along with Appellant No.5. the shopkeeper disclosed that he had issued SIM on the basis of bank passbook to Appellant No.5. The pass book on which the photograph of Ravi was replaced but it is not clear that whether the Appellant No.5 has replaced the same. In fact, there is no allegation to that effect. Witness Ravi did not make any complaint in respect of his lost of passbook. He never seen Appellant No.5 stealing his passbook. Appellant No.5 had never made any voluntary statement and he had taken police party or witness Ravi to shop of Ghadge. Therefore, it cannot be said that at the instance of Appellant No.5 passbook was seized by the police. From the above evidence, it is not established that accused No.5 was in any way involved in obtaining one of the SIM cards seized by the police. On perusal of CDR it appears that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were continuously in touch with persons using the SIM Cards in question. It appears that more two persons were in contact with Appellant No.2 but it is mere suspicion that Appellant Nos.3 and 5 were in contact with Appellant No.2. The said suspicion has not converted into proof. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of Anand @ Ganesh Devappa Chandanshive (P.W.No12), Sanjay Dinkar Sarolkar (P.W.No.13) to establish the involvement of accused Nos.3 and 4 in the crime. Anand P.W.No.12 deposed that one Narendra Chandrakant Gaikwad is a contractor. Gaikwad introduced him to Ram Sopan More (accused No.3) Accused No.3 was arrested under Panchnama at Exh.228 on 14 th December 2005. One diary was seized from accused No.3. Even if the above evidence is accepted as it is, it no way established the involvement of accused Nos.3 and 4 in the crime. There is absolutely no evidence to show the complicity of accused Nos.3 and 4 in the matter. There is no evidence that mobile phones were seized from the possession of accused Nos.3 and 4 and they were in contact with Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who kidnapped the victims. Therefore, it is impossible to infer that accused Nos.3 and 4 had participated in the crime by way of conspiracy.