Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench was seized of a confirmation case (Criminal Confirmation Case No. 1 of 2016) and two connected criminal appeals (No. 140 of 2016 and No. 103 of 2016) arising from the judgment and order dated 4.2.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Sessions Trial No. 488/14. The trial court convicted two accused, Rajesh Daware (Accused No. 1) and Arvind Singh (Accused No. 2), for the kidnapping and murder of an eight-year-old child, Yug, and sentenced them to death. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the deceased was the younger son of PW.1 Dr. Mukesh Chandak and his wife Premal, both dentists running the Chandak Dental Clinic. Accused No. 1 Rajesh Daware was employed as a receptionist at the said clinic from January 2014 but was irregular in attendance and had previously slapped the child in July 2014 when the child mishandled a hydraulic chair. Aggrieved by the admonishment and complaints of overcharging patients, Rajesh Daware conspired with Accused No. 2 Arvind Singh to abduct the child. On 1.9.2014, after the child returned from school, Accused No. 2, wearing a red T-shirt similar to the clinic's dress code, approached the child outside his home and took him on a scooty, joined later by Accused No. 1. The parents learned from the watchman that the child had gone with a young man in a red T-shirt and, after unsuccessful searches, informed the police. A case of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC was registered. Meanwhile, a ransom call was received. Suspecting Accused No. 1, the police interrogated him and he confessed, leading to the arrest of Accused No. 2. Pursuant to their memoranda under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the police recovered the child's dead body from beneath a bridge, concealed with sand and a boulder. Postmortem disclosed smothering as the cause of death. Various other articles, including clothes, scooty, mobile phones, and the child's earring, were recovered. CCTV footage from a petrol pump captured the accused purchasing fuel. A juvenile co-accused, younger brother of Accused No. 1, was also apprehended and separately proceeded against. The trial court framed charges under Sections 120B, 364A read with 34, 302 read with 34, and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both accused pleaded not guilty. The High Court reserved judgment on 2.5.2016 and pronounced it on 5.5.2016, but the operative portion of the judgment confirming or altering the death sentence is not contained in the extracted record.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Confirmation of Death Sentence - Section 366, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Trial court convicted two adult accused for kidnapping and murder of a minor child and awarded death penalty; reference made to High Court for confirmation, along with appeals by the convicts - (Paras 1-2) B) Penal Law - Kidnapping for Ransom and Murder - Sections 364A, 302, 201 read with 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Prosecution case that accused no.1, a former employee of the victim's father, conspired with accused no.2 to abduct the eight-year-old child for ransom, murdered him by smothering, and concealed the body under a bridge - (Paras 3-9) C) Evidence - Discovery at Instance of Accused - Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - On memoranda of the two accused, police recovered the dead body, clothes, scooty, and other articles; trial court relied on such recoveries along with other circumstantial evidence to convict - (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the death penalty awarded by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 488/14 is liable to be confirmed, and whether the appeals filed by the convicts against their conviction and sentence should be allowed or dismissed.
Law Points
- confirmation of death penalty
- kidnapping for ransom
- murder
- Section 364A IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- circumstantial evidence
- recoveries under Section 27 Evidence Act
