Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2025

Bombay High Court

Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2025

Author: Revati Mohite Dere

Bench: Revati Mohite Dere

2025:BHC-AS:19705-DB

                                                                        2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2017

                                                   WITH

                            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5098 OF 2024


            Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari,
            Age 28 eyars, Occupation : Labour Work,
            R/at: Khandupada, Bhiwandi,
            District : Thane.                                  .....Appellant
                  Vs.
            The State of Maharashtra,
            At the instance of Bhiwandi
            City Police Station, District : Thane,
            Vide C.R.No.I-232 of 2013,
            Tried in Sessions Case No. 248/2014.               .....Respondent

            Mr. B. A. Lawate, for the Appellant.
            Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP, for Respondent-State.

                                                 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
                                                          DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                           RESERVED ON : 23rd APRIL 2025.
                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 30th APRIL 2025.
            JUDGMENT :

– (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

1. The Appellant assails the Judgment and Order dated 7 th

February 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane in

Sessions Case No.248 of 2014. By the impugned Judgment and Order,

the Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections

Shivgan 1/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

364A and 386 of the Indian Penal Code, (‘IPC‘) 1860. For the offence

punishable under Section 364A of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer

life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which

suffer rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two months. For the offence

punishable under Section 386 of the IPC, he is sentenced to suffer RI

for five years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to suffer one

month of RI. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. He is also

held entitled for set off for the period of detention already undergone.

The Appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section

25(1)(c)(1-a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and 37(1)135 of the Bombay

Police Act, 1951. The said acquittal is on account of absence of the

sanction to prosecute him under the Arms Act or any order of the

Police Commissioner under the Bombay Police Act being placed on

record. There were two other accused in the said offence, one of

whom was absconding and the other, a juvenile in conflict with the

law and hence, tried separately under the provisions of law, as

applicable.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 The Dangi family comprising of several cousins and uncles

Shivgan 2/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

were working in a power loom in Mumbai. Some of them were

residing at Narayan Compound, Kanher, Bhiwandi. They used to take

their meals in ‘Mangal Bhavan’ i.e. the house of their aunt.

2.2 On 20th November 2013, the complainant, Uday Baldeo

Dangi (PW/1) had been to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ to have dinner. At that

time, Pankajkumar Govind Dangi (PW/3) and Vikaskumar Sitaram

Dangi (PW/4) were working in the power loom. After some time,

both PW/3 and PW/4 came to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ to have dinner while

the complainant returned to the power loom. Thereafter, the

complainant received a phone call from Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), the

third victim, informing him that some rogue persons had taken him

along with Vikaskumar and Pankajkumar at knife/gunpoint. They

rushed to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ where their aunt informed the

complainant that the kidnappers were demanding Rs.15,000/- for the

release of the victims. One of the kidnappers directed the complainant

to bring the ransom of Rs.15,000/- immediately at the Hotel Sagar

Plaza, Nagaon Road, Shantinagar, failing which all the three victims

would be killed.

2.3 The complainant (PW/1) went to the Bhiwandi City Police

Shivgan 3/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

Station and lodged the complaint. The police registered an FIR vide

C.R.No.232 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 364A,

386 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act and

under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter, the police

arranged a trap. The complainant brought Rs.4,000/- to be used in the

trap. The trap party went near Hotel Sagar Plaza and the complainant

received the call of the kidnappers on his mobile phone. When two

persons came near the Hotel Sagar Plaza to collect the money, the

complainant paid Rs.4,000/- to them and signaled the police.

Immediately, the said persons were accosted. They stated their names

and one of them was the Appellant. On a personal search, a revolver

and a knife were found on their persons. These articles were seized

under Panchnama. Statements of witnesses were recorded. So also, the

complainant recorded his supplementary statement. On 30 th January

2014, the revolver along with four live cartridges were sent to the

ballistic expert for analysis. The Appellant did not have a license to

possess the revolver. Accordingly, after the investigation, the charge

sheet was filed against the Appellant in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Joint Court, Bhiwandi, which was committed

to the Additional Sessions Court, Thane.

Shivgan 4/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::

2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

2.4 Charges were framed against the Appellant for the

offences punishable under Sections 364A, 386 of the IPC and under

Section 25(1)(c)(1-a) of the Arms Act and 37(1) 135 of the Bombay

Police Act on 26th November 2014. The Appellant entered his plea of

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.5 In support of their case, the prosecution examined as

many as seven witnesses. The defence did not lead any evidence. The

statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The defence of the Appellant was that

of total denial, innocence and false implication. However, the

Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane vide his Judgment and Order

dated 7th February 2017, convicted the Appellant and sentenced him

as noted in paragraph 1 above.

3. Mr. B.A. Lawate, learned counsel represented the

Appellant and Mr. Aashish Satpute, learned APP represented the State.

4. The case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence i.e

three eye witnesses, who are the victims of the offence themselves.

According to the prosecution, the three victims namely, Pankajkumar

Shivgan 5/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

(PW/3), Ramesh (PW/6) and Vikaskumar (PW/4) were abducted and

their relatives including the complainant (PW/1) received threatening

calls. The Appellant called the complainant (PW/1) from the mobile of

the victim (PW/6) and demanded a ransom of Rs.15,000/- to be paid

to them at a designated place i.e. at the Hotel Sagar Plaza. The

complainant was threatened with death of the victims on failure to

deliver the ransom amount. Thereafter, the police laid a trap.

Rs.4,000/- was brought by the complainant in denominations of

Rs.500/- notes, numbers of which were noted by the police. The said

amount was carried by the complainant to the Hotel Sagar Plaza, as an

exchange for the victims. The Appellant and his accomplices who

came to collect the money were accosted by the police on a signal

given by the complainant. Rs.4,000/- which was handed over to the

Appellant was recovered and found to be the same notes, numbers of

which were recorded by the police. The victims themselves have

deposed before the Court narrating their ordeal and have identified

the Appellant. Hence, according to the prosecution, the substantive

evidence led by the prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the

commission of the offences for which the Appellant is convicted

beyond reasonable doubt.

Shivgan 6/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::

2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

5. Mr. Lawate outlined the defence. He says that firstly, there

is no clarity as to the mode of transport which was used by the

abductors to abduct the victims. Mr. Lawate pointed out that while

PW/3 stated that they were abducted in an auto, PW/6 said that they

were abducted in a tempo. According to Mr. Lawate, this is a major

contradiction in the story of the two victims themselves. He also

argues that the statement of rickshaw/tempo driver was not recorded

and neither is there any substantive evidence in respect of the same.

Secondly, he says that the mobile phone of Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), one

of the victims was used to call the complainant to demand ransom.

This mobile phone was not recovered by the police. Thirdly, Mr.

Lawate argues that the Spot Panchnama of seizing the amount of

ransom paid of Rs.4,000/- was prepared in police station. He thus,

contends that the prosecution has not proved the case against the

Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and hence, urges the Court to

allow the Appeal and set aside the conviction.

6. Per contra, Mr. Satpute, learned APP has taken us through

the testimony of all the seven witnesses. He submits that the victims,

themselves, have narrated their ordeal by giving their testimonies in

Shivgan 7/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

the Court; the currency notes which were exchanged at Hotel Sagar

Plaza when compared with the numbers on the currency notes jotted

down by the police at the police station are the same. The Appellant

and his accomplice were apprehended at the spot by the police in the

act of exchange of money. According to him, all these acts are proved

by cogent and reliable evidence. Hence, the case against the Appellant

is water tight and proved beyond reasonable doubt. He prays that the

Appeal should be dismissed.

7. The law is settled in cases where the injured witness

himself testifies. The Supreme Court, in its decision in the case of

Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhatisgarh1 has dealt with the importance

of the deposition of an injured witness. It is held that unless there are

compelling circumstances, or evidence placed by the defence to doubt

the testimony of the victims of the crime, this evidence has to be

accepted as extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial. The

importance of such injured witness cannot be overstated. The Apex

Court has referred to the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of

Maharashtra2, where the Supreme Court summed up the principles to

be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eye
1 [2024] 1 S.C.R. 40
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355

Shivgan 8/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

witness, which read as under:

“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by
the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and
place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are
material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must
be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real
culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements
are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be
discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally

Shivgan 9/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be
discarded.”

8. Further having regard to the legal position pertaining to

the scope and purport of Section 364A of the IPC, a case that requires

notice is a Three Judge Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in Vikram

Singh v. Union of India 3. In this case, the Apex Court elaborately

considered the scope and purport of Section 364A of the IPC

including its historical background. After noticing earlier cases, the

Apex Court laid down that Section 364A of the IPC has three distinct

components. In paragraph 25, the following was laid down with

regard to distinct components of Section 364A: (SCC pp 522-23)

“25……Section 364-A IPC has three distinct components
viz. (i) The person concerned kidnaps or abducts or keeps
the victims in detention after kidnapping or abduction; (ii)
threatens to cause death or hurt or causes apprehension of
death or hurt or actually hurts or causes death; and (iii) the
kidnapping, abduction or detention and the threats of death
or hurt, apprehension for such death or hurt or actual death
or hurt is caused to coerce the person concerned or someone
else to do something or to forebear from doing something or
to pay ransom.”

9. In the case in hand, the complainant (PW/1) has narrated

3 (2015) 9 SCC 502

Shivgan 10/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

that he received a phone call from the victim Ramesh Dangi (PW/6).

He also received a call from his aunt informing him that the Appellant

has demanded 15,000/- for the release of the victims failing which,

they would be killed. He has narrated regarding the trap that was

arranged by the police with panchas in tow. The complainant himself

along with the police and panchas went in a private vehicle near the

Hotel Sagar Plaza. This witness specifically deposed that he received a

phone call from the Appellant and he informed him that he was on the

way and was bringing the amount demanded by the Appellant. He

signaled the police when he saw the Appellant with Ramesh Dangi

(PW/6). The Appellant had a knife and the police apprehended him

when the amount was exchanged in the presence of this witness. The

Appellant disclosed the identity of the other accused and also took the

police to the place where they were waiting. One of the accused had a

revolver and tried to run away but the police caught him. Two knives,

revolver and four live cartridges along with Rs.4,000/- which was

given by this witness were seized and a Panchnama was drawn up.

This witness clearly identified the Appellant in Court and also stated

that the Panchnama was prepared in his presence. In his cross-

examination, nothing material is elicited. Although he could not

Shivgan 11/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

remember the registration number of the private vehicle by which he

traveled to the designated place, the same is not of any material

consequence. There is nothing to doubt the statement of this witness.

10. Mr. Anil Kesarwani (PW/2) is the panch witness to the trap

arranged by the police. He identified the Appellant and deposed as to

the entire sequence of events that transpired from the time they

started from the police station till the accused persons including the

Appellant were apprehended. Mr. Lawate tried to raise some doubts

regarding the recording of the Panchnama as this witness stated in his

cross-examination that the Panchnama at Exhibit 13 was written in the

police station. We have gone through the said Panchnama. It is in

respect of the trap set up by the police and related to the amount

seized. The Panchnama records the numbers of currency notes of

Rs.500/- denomination, that were recorded by the police earlier. The

comparison of the numbers on the notes was done in the police station

and hence, in this context the panchnama was recorded in the police

station. Nothing of consequence turns on this. The testimony of this

witness inspires confidence and there is nothing more in the cross-

examination to doubt his statement.

Shivgan 12/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::

2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

11. PW/3, PW/4 and PW/6 are the victims of abduction. Their

individual testimony supports the testimony given by each other.

Their stories match and there is no material deviation in their

narrations. All of them deposed that one of the accused made them

accompany him at the point of knife and demanded an amount of

Rs.20,000/-. The accused including the Appellant, threatened to kill

them if the amount is not paid. A call was made to the complainant

from the mobile phone of Ramesh Dangi. Ramesh deposed that he

was compelled to call and tell the complainant to bring Rs.15,000/- as

ransom to a designated place near Hotel Sagar Plaza. The complainant

came with the amount. Thereafter, the police trapped the accused

while taking the money. That this accused was the Appellant. All the

witnesses/victims identified the Appellant and the knife in Court.

12. Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), one of the three victims has

supported the story of PW/3 and PW/4, the other victims. There are

some variations but they are so minor and of no substantial

consequence. Nothing material or contradictory has emerged from

the cross-examination. There is no reason to doubt the statements of

the victims, who have deposed in the Court.

Shivgan 13/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::

2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

13. PW/7 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed as to the

recording of Panchnama in the presence of panchas. He also deposed

as to the seizure of the revolver and four live cartridges from the

Appellant and having sent the same for analysis to the Ballistic Expert.

He also deposed regarding the number on the currency notes recorded

in the police station. However, he also stated that there was no order

of the Commissioner of Police as required under the Bombay Police

Act.

14. The FSL report is at Exhibit 31. The result of analysis

clearly indicates that the countrymade handgun seized was in working

condition and was used for firing before its receipt in the laboratory.

This clearly shows that the threat to the life of the victims was real and

the threat could have been easily carried out by the Appellant and the

other accused.

15. The aforesaid discussion reveals that in the present case,

evidence placed by the prosecution to establish a case under Section

364A of the IPC is in the form of a phone call to the complainant

threatening to kill the victims of abduction in the event the amount of

ransom as demanded, was not paid. Thus, the demand of ransom is

Shivgan 14/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

clearly established. The knife and the gun recovered also indicate that

the threat to the life of the victims was very real. The statements of all

the three victims support each other and the final clinching piece of

evidence is the recovery of the money exchanged. Thus, the three

distinct components specified by the Apex Court in Vikram Singh

(Supra) are satisfied. An offence under Section 364A of the IPC is

clearly made out. Furthermore, keeping in view the six broad

principles laid down by the Apex Court in Balu Khalde (Supra), we

find the testimony of the victims of the crime to be compelling and

inspires confidence. We have no hesitation in holding that the act of

abduction for ransom is complete and has been committed by the

Appellant and his accomplices.

16. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the

Judgment and the Order impugned herein is well reasoned and is a

sound legal decision. The evidence on record, when assessed in its

entirety, establishes the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasonable

doubt. The observations of the Trial Court are compelling and do not

warrant any interference. The prosecution has established its case

beyond all reasonable doubt based on legal, cogent and admissible

Shivgan 15/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::
2-apeal-296-2017-J.doc

evidence. The Appeal, thus fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. The

conviction and the sentence of the Appellant stands confirmed.

17. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, the Interim

Application No. 5098 of 2024 does not survive and is also disposed

off.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:

2025.04.30
17:40:16
+0530

Shivgan 16/16

::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 30/04/2025 22:35:16 :::