Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, heard four criminal appeals arising from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Akot, dated 1 June 2016, in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2014. The trial court had convicted two accused persons, Akshay Pachange (Accused No.1) and Akshay Purohit (Accused No.2), for the kidnapping of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl named Vishaka @ Lado, the daughter of the informant Sagar Bagani. The prosecution alleged that on 27 February 2014, Accused No.1, who was employed at Bagani's hardware shop and entrusted to look after the child, conspired with Accused No.2 to kidnap the minor. After the child went missing, the informant received a phone call from Accused No.1 claiming that Accused No.2 had assaulted him and taken the child. The child's body was subsequently discovered buried in a maize field, with a string around her neck. The investigation led to the recovery of incriminating articles, including the dead body, at the instance of Accused No.2 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial court convicted Accused No.1 under Sections 363, 120B, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years, three years, and three years respectively, with fines. Accused No.2 was convicted under Sections 302, 363, 120B, and 201 IPC, receiving life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for the other offences. Both were acquitted of charges under Section 364A IPC (kidnapping for ransom) and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Aggrieved, both accused filed appeals (Criminal Appeals 171/2017 and 220/2016) challenging their convictions. The State of Maharashtra appealed (Criminal Appeal 409/2017) against the acquittal of Accused No.1 for murder under Section 302 and ransom under Section 364A. Additionally, the original informant, Sagar Bagani, filed Criminal Appeal 410/2017, seeking enhancement of punishment and challenging the acquittals. During the hearing before the High Court, the Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved all incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, establishing a complete chain of events. He emphasized the last-seen-together theory, the narrow time gap between the accused being seen with the child and the discovery of her death, and the recovery of the dead body on the memorandum of Accused No.2 under Section 27. He also cited chemical analysis reports and ransom-related SMS messages as corroborative evidence. The informant's counsel urged for capital punishment. The defense advocates, whose arguments were cut short in the available record, were presumably contesting the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and the credibility of the recoveries. The High Court, having reserved its judgment on 20 March 2019, pronounced it on 16 April 2019. The complete reasoning and final order are not included in the provided excerpt, but the court's careful consideration of the evidence, including the application of the last-seen doctrine and the admissibility of discoveries under Section 27, was expected to form the core of the decision on the appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 363, 201, 120B; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - The prosecution's case rested on circumstances of accused persons last seen with the minor victim, narrow time gap, false explanation, and recovery of dead body under Section 27. The trial court convicted accused No.1 for kidnapping and conspiracy, and accused No.2 for murder, kidnapping, conspiracy and destruction of evidence. Appeals were preferred challenging the convictions and acquittal on some charges. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Appeals - State and Informant Appeals - Section 364A, Section 66A IT Act - The State and original informant appealed against acquittal of accused under sections 364A IPC and 66A IT Act, and sought enhancement of punishment including death penalty. (Paras 1-2, 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's conviction and acquittal were justified based on circumstantial evidence; whether the sentence should be enhanced to capital punishment.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- time gap
- recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act
- criminal conspiracy
- kidnapping
- murder
- causing disappearance of evidence
- sentence enhancement
- capital punishment
- acquittal appeal
