Kidnap for Ransom Confirmed | Bombay High Court Affirms Life Sentence | Threat to Kill Was Real and Act of Abduction Complete Says Court | Victim Testimony Compelling and Inspires Confidence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The bench delivered its verdict on 30th April 2025, reaffirming the trial court’s judgment passed on 7th February 2017.
The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, a 28-year-old labourer from Bhiwandi, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for abducting three individuals and demanding ransom, supported by direct evidence from the victims and recovery of ransom money and weapons.
The incident stems from an occurrence on 20th November 2013, involving members of the Dangi family, who were working in a power loom and residing in Narayan Compound, Kanher, Bhiwandi. On the date of the incident, Uday Baldeo Dangi (PW/1) returned to the power loom after dinner when he received a distress call from Ramesh Dangi (PW/6), stating that he, Pankajkumar Dangi (PW/3), and Vikaskumar Dangi (PW/4) had been abducted at gunpoint.
According to the complainant, he rushed back to ‘Mangal Bhavan’ and was informed by his aunt that the kidnappers were demanding Rs.15,000 for the victims’ release. A subsequent ransom call instructed him to bring the money to Hotel Sagar Plaza, failing which the victims would be killed. PW/1 then approached Bhiwandi City Police Station and lodged a complaint. An FIR was registered vide C.R. No. 232 of 2013 under Sections 364A and 386 IPC, Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, and the Bombay Police Act.
The police laid a trap with marked currency amounting to Rs.4,000. When the kidnappers came to collect the money near Hotel Sagar Plaza, the police apprehended two individuals, one of whom was the appellant. Upon search, a revolver and a knife were found in their possession. Subsequent investigation revealed that the appellant lacked a license for the revolver. The revolver with four live cartridges was sent to the ballistic expert for analysis. The charge sheet was filed in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court and later committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Thane.
Charges were framed under Sections 364A, 386 IPC, Section 25(1)(c)(1-a) of the Arms Act, and Section 37(1)135 of the Bombay Police Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including all three victims, the complainant, and a panch witness. The appellant did not lead any defence evidence.
The prosecution argued that the case was supported by direct evidence from the victims, identification of the accused, seizure of marked currency, and recovery of weapons. The complainant (PW/1) testified about the ransom calls, the trap arrangement, and the identification of the appellant during the exchange of money. PW/2, the panch witness, corroborated the police procedure and recovery. PW/3, PW/4, and PW/6 gave consistent testimonies about the abduction and threats.
The defence argued that there were inconsistencies in the victims’ accounts regarding the mode of transport used for the abduction—some said an auto, others a tempo. They also challenged the absence of recovery of the mobile phone used to make the ransom call and argued that the panchnama was prepared in the police station.
The Bench stated that "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." Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reaffirmed that "the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly."
The Court recorded that the testimonies of the victims were consistent and corroborated by recovery evidence. It was stated that "the broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
On the legal purport of Section 364A IPC, the Bench referred to the three components established by the Supreme Court in Vikram Singh v. Union of India (2015) 9 SCC 502, observing:
"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."
The Court found all three elements satisfied in this case. The Bench noted: "the complainant received a phone call from the victim Ramesh Dangi (PW/6) and also from the aunt informing that the Appellant has demanded 15,000/- for the release of the victims failing which, they would be killed."
It also stated: "The complainant signalled 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."
Regarding the alleged contradictions in the mode of transport, the Bench observed that such minor variations do not impact the credibility of the prosecution. The testimony of the panch witness, who recorded the serial numbers of the currency notes, was also found to be credible. The panchnama was written in the police station after the exchange, a procedure deemed not detrimental to the prosecution.
The FSL report confirmed that the seized handgun was functional and had been used for firing prior to analysis, establishing the threat as real. The Court stated: "The three distinct components specified by the Apex Court in Vikram Singh are satisfied. An offence under Section 364A of the IPC is clearly made out."
The Court also recorded that "the statements of all the three victims support each other and the final clinching piece of evidence is the recovery of the money exchanged."
The Division Bench concluded: "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."
Accordingly, the Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Thane. The Appeal was dismissed. The Interim Application No. 5098 of 2024 was also disposed of as infructuous.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. B.A. Lawate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashish I. Satpute, APP
Case Title: Javed Akhtar Basiulla Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS: 19705-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2017 with Interim Application No. 5098 of 2024
Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
[Read/Download order]
