Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard together five criminal appeals and one criminal revision application arising from the judgment and order dated 23 June 2014 of the Children's Court, State of Goa, in Special Case No. 28 of 2006. The Children's Court had convicted four accused—Rohan Dhungat (A-1), Nafiyaz Sheikh (A-2), Shankar Tiwari (A-3), and Jovito Ryan dos Remedios Pinto (A-4)—for offences under Sections 201, 302, 364-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, and sentenced them, inter alia, to life imprisonment. The accused filed appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. The State of Goa filed an appeal aggrieved by the grant of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period already undergone. The victim's father, Deepak Surlakar, filed a revision application seeking enhancement of the sentence to death penalty or, alternatively, life imprisonment without remission. The prosecution case was that all accused, along with one Al Saleha Beig (A-5, who later turned approver), were friends. A-1, A-2, and A-4, law students, ran a magazine business and, facing losses, initially conspired to kidnap another person for ransom but abandoned that plan. In August 2006, on A-1’s suggestion, they conspired to kidnap the victim, a minor from Vasco, because his family was wealthy. In furtherance, they procured ropes, syringes, tapes, baseball bats, gloves, and car number plates. On 14 August 2006, posing as event managers, they lured the victim on the pretext of a DJ show. A-1 and A-2 picked him up from his house; A-3 joined, and they took him to A-4’s house at Ucassaim, where A-4 and A-5 were present. The victim was assaulted, tied up, and forced to record a ransom message to his father demanding Rs 50 lakhs. The father immediately informed the Vasco Police. A-1 and A-2 were summoned and initially misled police by claiming they had left the victim at a café. The next day, the victim’s dead body was discovered with injuries caused by strangulation and baseball bats. Post-mortem confirmed homicide. Further investigation led to the arrest of all accused. A-5 applied for pardon, which was initially refused but later granted on 22 February 2008 by the High Court’s direction; he then made a full disclosure and was examined as P.W.1. In all, the prosecution examined 57 witnesses. At the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty, filed written statements under Section 313 CrPC, and claimed false implication but led no defence evidence. The Children's Court, after considering the evidence, found them guilty and sentenced them. The High Court’s common judgment, as per the available excerpt, set out the background and the operative part of the lower court’s order but the final determination on all appeals and the revision was not included in the text provided.
Headnote
A) Criminal Conspiracy and Kidnapping for Ransom - Sections 120-B and 364-A IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 364-A - The accused hatched a conspiracy to kidnap a minor for ransom of Rs 50 lakhs; the victim was abducted and later murdered; the Children's Court convicted them under these sections (Paras 5, 6, 9). B) Murder - Section 302 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The victim was killed by strangulation and assault with baseball bats; post-mortem confirmed homicidal death; the accused were convicted for murder (Paras 5, 6, 9). C) Causing Disappearance of Evidence - Section 201 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201 - After the murder, the accused attempted to dispose of the body; the dead body was discovered at Alra Keri, near Ponda; they were convicted under this section (Paras 5, 6, 9). D) Offence under Goa Children's Act, 2003 - Section 8(2) - Goa Children's Act, 2003, Section 8(2) - The victim was a child below 18 years of age; the special provision was invoked, and the Children's Court convicted the accused (Paras 6, 9). E) Approver's Pardon - Sections 306, 307 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 306, 307 - Co-accused Al Saleha Beig (A-5) was granted pardon after promising full disclosure; his testimony as P.W.1 was used by the prosecution (Paras 7, 8). F) Set-off under Section 428 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 428 - The Children's Court directed set-off for the period already undergone during trial; the State appealed, arguing that life convicts are not entitled to set-off (Paras 2, 9). G) Enhancement of Sentence - Revision Application - The victim's father sought enhancement of life imprisonment to death penalty or life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences charged; whether the accused are entitled to set-off under Section 428 CrPC; whether the sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to death penalty or life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.
Final Decision
The High Court's common judgment disposing of the appeals and revision was not provided in the extracted text; only the lower court's conviction and sentence are stated.
Law Points
- Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC read with conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC
- murder under Section 302 IPC
- causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC
- offence against children under Section 8(2) of Goa Children's Act
- 2003
- approver's pardon under Sections 306 and 307 CrPC
- set-off under Section 428 CrPC for life imprisonment
- enhancement of sentence to death penalty or life without remission.
