HC uphold life sentence of two for kidnapping 5-yr-old for ransom

The Bombay High Court has upheld the life sentence imposed on two friends – Sandeep Kamble and Nitin Samudre – for kidnapping a 5year-old boy and demanding ransom in 2010 in Pune. The HC observed that prosecution proved its case beyond doubt and established a chain of events.

A division bench of Justices SS Shinde and Sarang Kotwal, however, acquitted Kamble’s brother Bharat and mother Vimal, giving them the benefit of doubt. They were sentenced to three years of imprisonment as the police recovered the ransom money from the house, which was shared by Sandeep and his brother and mother.

The HC was hearing two different appeals – one by Kamble and Samudre and the other by Bharat and Vimal – challenging their conviction by sessions court at Pune on December 27, 2012.

Prosecution claimed that

Kamble and Samudre abducted the five-and-a-half years old boy from Raja Shivaji Nagar, Chinchwad, on the morning of April 09, 2010 in an Indica car. Phone calls were made to the boy’s mother on a few occasions and Rs 15 lakh was demanded as ransom. The mother could only arrange Rs 6 lakh. She was asked to board a local train and to throw the bag containing the money at a particular spot.

Meanwhile, the boy’s uncle informed the police as well. A tracking device was kept in the bag with money. The police even marked the first and the last note in the bundles of money. With the help of the tracker, the police traced the money to a house, in which Kamble used to stay with his brother and mother. The police recovered Rs 5.85 lakh and arrested all four.

On April 12, 2010, the boy reached his house alone at around 7.45 pm. He was inconsolable and hid under the staircase.

The prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The boy had identified Kamble and Samudre during an identification parade at the Yerawada Central prison. The defence of the accused was of total denial. Bharat and Vimal’s advocate argued that the sessions court had acquitted them of kidnapping charges. Seeking quashing of their conviction for concealing stolen property, their advocate argued that the cash was recovered from the house which was jointly occupied by these two along with Kamble.

Kamble’s advocate argued that there was no reliable evidence against him. Besides, the boy had not identified him in court during the trial. Samudre’s advocate contended that there is nothing to show that there is connection between him and Kamble. The prosecution has claimed that the boy was kidnapped in an Indica car, driven by Kamble. According to eyewitnesses, Samudre was not in the said car.