Judgment in Sessions Case No.

425/2011 :1:

Ex165

Presentedon :14/06/2011
Registeredon :18/06/2011
Decidedon :02/08/2017
Duration(Y/M/D) :06/01/15

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONFORGREATERBOMBAYATMUMBAI

SESSIONSCASENO.425OF2011
(C.C.No.63/PW/2011)

THESTATEOFMAHARASHTRA
AttheinstanceofYellowGatePoliceStation,
MumbaivideC.R.No.06/2011. Respondent
(Orig.Complainant)

Versus.

1.USMANSALADEID,
Aged37years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatBaykolole,BossasoCity,
StatePuntland,Somalia.

2.KHALIFFARAHADEN,
Aged24years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatAreaGarsor,GalkaioCity,
Puntland,Somalia.

3.ABDIRISAQBASHIRHILELO,
Aged27years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatIsra,GalkaioCity,Puntland,
Somalia.

4.MOHAMMEDALIMOHAMMAD,
Aged19years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatMirDampas,WarderCity,
Kilil5,StateEthopia.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :2:

5.HABIBMEHMOODSARAH,
Aged24years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatQuandala,BossasoCity,
StatePuntland,Somalia.

6.BONJHONALI,
Aged27years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingat8thStreet,Isli,Nairobi,
Kenya.

7.MOHAMMADABDULAHIHASAN,
Aged19years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatHerrald,AbudwagCity,
SouthSomaliaState.

8.AWAYSARTANMOHAMMAD,
Aged22years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatBush,AreaGarrad,
CheribanDist.,MudukState.

9.YASIRCHAMADIRIYE,
Aged20years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatGaladiWarderCity,
Zone5,Ethiopia.

10.AHMEDABDIHASSAN,
Aged19years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatNewHargisa,SomaliLand,
Somalia.

11.MOHAMMADABDULLAHIBARRE,
Aged19years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatIsra,GalkaioCity,
Puntland,Somalia.

12.BASHIRUMMERMOHAMMAD,
Aged27years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatBossasoCity,StatePuntland,
Somalia.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :3:

13.FARAHCHAMAFARAH,
Aged25years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatWabari,GarouueCity,
Puntland,Somalia.

14.ABSHIRABDIHUSEN,
Aged25years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatBush,AreaDigalle,
GarouueCity,Puntland,Somalia.

15.RAGEC.RISSAQABDILE,
Aged18years,Muslim,Occ.Nil,
residingatKabile2,WarderCity,
Zone5,StateEthiopia. Accused

CORAM: H.H.THEADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE,
SHRI.JAYENDRAC.JAGDALE,
(C.R.No.51).

DATED: 2NDAUGUST,2017.

Mr.RanjeetV.Sangle,Ld.SPPfortheState/Respondent.
Mr.VishwajeetSingh,Ld.AdvocatefortheAccd.Nos.1to15.

JUDGMENT
(DictatedinOpenCourt)

1 The accused persons are facing trial for the offences

punishableu/sec.143,144,147,148,353r/w149,307r/w149,364
r/w149,364Ar/w149,304r/w149,344r/w149,427r/w149,438
r/w 149 & 506(2) r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) r/w
sections 16 & 20 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,
2008r/wsections3,25&27ofIndianArmsAct. Theywerecharge
sheetedbyYellowGatePoliceStationvideCrimeNo.06/2011. They
werechargedandtriedforthesameoffences.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :4:

2 Thebrieffactsoftheprosecutioncaseareasunder:
On28thJanuary2011atabout10.21hrs.,theCoastGuard
DornierAircraftCG763whilepatrollingtheExclusiveEconomicZone
(EEZ)ofIndiareceivedaMAYDAYdistresscallofpiracyattemptfrom
aMerchantVesselCMACGMVERDI,whichwasflyingthe Bahamas
Flag,inposition09Degree28N,073Degree02East(130SuheliPar
Light 59 NM) south of Lakshadweep Islands within the Indian EEZ
Territory. ThesaidCoastGuardDornierAircraft,whichwasin that
area,reactedimmediatelyandflewlowoverthe saidmerchantship
VERDI. Atthatpointoftime,twosmallboatsi.e.skiffsweresighted,
thosewereapproachingtowardsthesaidmerchantvesselVERDI.They
wereintheprocessofboardingthemerchantvessel.OnsightingCoast
Guard Aircraft, the pirates on board the two skiffs immediately
abandonedthepiracyattemptandreturnedtheirpiratedmothervessel.
TheCoastGuardDornierAircraftcontinuedshadowingtheskiffsand
locatedtheirmothervesselofpiratesviz.PRANTALAYA14.TheCoast
Guard Dornier then passed the said information to the Coast Guard
DistrictHQ4,KeralaatKochi. Onthesamedayatabout12.20hrs.
ICGSSANKALPwasdivertedfromitsEEZPatrollingpointwithinthe
LakshadweepIslands,inordertorenderassistance. ThereafterCoast
Guard Aircraft was deployed to shadow the pirate mother vessel
PRANTALAYA14.ICGSSANKALPalsoproceededwithmaximumspeed
tointerceptthepiratemothervessel.
Inthemeanwhile,theNavalShipswerealsodeployedto
interceptthepiratemothervesselPRANTALAYA14.OneoftheNaval
Ships INS CANCARSO intercepted the pirate mother vessel
PRANTALAYA14around19.00hrs.Itwasfoundthatthesamepirate
mother vessel PRANTALAYA 14 was hijacked earlier by the said
SomalianPiratessomemonthsbackandwereoperatingthesameas
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :5:

pirate mothervesseltohijackandapprehendothermerchantvessels
plying in the sea and extorted millions of dollars as ransom for the
releaseofsuchvesselsanditscrew.Theoriginal22crewmembersof
the PRANTALAYA 14 were nationals of Thailand and were taken
hostagesafterthehijackingofthesaidvesselPRANTALAYA14byabout
25 Somalian Pirates. These Somalian pirates had about 25 AK47
assaultriflesandtwoRocketLaunchersatthetimeofbeingintercepted
bytheINSCANCARSO.ThesaidaccusedSomalianPiratesopenedfire
withtheirdeadlyweaponsandfirearmsontheIndianNavalShipINS
CANCARSO.IntheretaliatoryfirebyINSCANCARSOinselfdefence,
thepiratemothervesselcaughtfireandsankinposition09Deg25.19
N072DegN16.03E.Duetosinkingofthemothervessel,about15of
25piratesabandonedthevesselandboardedtheliferaft. TheThai
hostages22innumber,whohadjumpedintotheseaweresubsequently
rescuedbyINSCANCARSOandtakentoKochi,Kerala.
On29January,2011atabout04.10hrs.,ICGSSANKALP
onreachingtheareasightedsunkpiratedmothervesselPRANTALAYA
14withitsfoxle(forwardsectionoftheship)abouthalfmeterabove
waterlineburning.Italsosightedaliferaftinthevicinityofthesunken
vessel. INS KALPENI was also present in the area. The ship ICGS
SANKALPthenrescuedall15accusedSomalianPiratesfromthelife
raft from position 09Deg25.19N 072DegN 15.96E (within the Indian
EEZ)at07.37hrs.Onthesameday,extensivesearchwascarriedout
byICGSSANKALPinordertoverifyastowhetheranymoresurvivors
havebeenleftornot.Howevernoothersurvivorswerefound.Allthe
15accusedSomalianPirateshaveneitheranyidentitycards,norany
passportoranyotheridentificationdocuments.Thestatementofeach
ofthesaidSomalianPirateswasrecordedbyofficersonboardtheICGS
SANKALP. Accordingtothestatementsofthesepirates,theother10
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :6:

pirateshaddiedduetodrowningintheseabeingnonswimmers.
Duringtheprocessofpreliminaryinvestigation,oneofthe
piratesviz.MohammedS/o.Abdulaiintimatedthattheyweretakenfor
thejobofhijackingshipsbyAbarAbdiBeyle(PirateMaster,whodied
duringtheoperation)andUsmanSalad(Oneofthepiratesaccusedno.
1).HewaspaidUS$100inadvanceandwaspromisedtobepaidmore
onsuccessfulhijackingofanyofthevessels.AlltheaccusedSomalian
pirateswerebroughttoMumbaiforfurtheraction.
The Assistant Commandant of the Indian Coast Guard
(0717D) Shri. Pawan Kumar Yadav filed the written complaint at
YellowGatePoliceStation. ThePoliceStationregisteredthesameas
Crime No. 06/2011. Along with the written complaint, the first
informantalsosubmittedseveraldocumentssuchascertifiedcopyof
theextractofthelogbookofICGSSANKALP,ECDISCprintoutwith
GPSposition,Listofaccusedpirates,certifiedphotocopyofgroundsof
arrestgiventoeachof piratesandthe statementsofeachof the 16
accusedpiratesrecordedbytheICGSofficers.

3 The15accusedSomalianPirateswerebroughttoMumbai
on31stJanuary,2011andweretakenintocustodybytheYellowGate
Police Station, after registration of First Information Report No.
06/2011u/sec.143,144,146,147,148,149,353,307,304,341,342,
344,363,364A,437&511r/w34oftheIndianPenalCodeandu/sec.
3,25&27oftheIndianArmsActandu/sec.16and20oftheUnlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The work of investigation started
fromthatmoment.TheworkofinvestigationwasassignedtoPIBharat
Bhoite.

4 Duringtheprocessofinvestigation,theinvestigatingofficer
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :7:

PI BharatAtmaram Bhoite arrested15accusedpersons. One of the

accusedpersonsviz.RageC.Rissaq,whowasarrestedunderinjured
condition,sohewastakentoJ.J.Hospitalformedicaltreatment. PI
Bharat Bhoite conducted inquiry towards arrested accused. On
05/02/2011, Commanding Officer Arun Satishchandra Bahuguna of
INS Cancarso was called and his statement was recorded. On
07/02/2011 the personnel of Indian Navy had brought the original
crewmembersofPRANTALAYA14,whowereheldhostagesbyallthe
accused. The total number of hostages were 20 in number. On
10/02/2011,hostagesviz.PhrombupaPochi,WanonSirapob,Jumras
IardbarsriandChamnongNamsaenghavegiventheirstatementsu/sec.
164ofCr.P.C.,whichwererecordedbytheMetropolitanMagistrate,
Mumbai. All the hostages were citizens of Thailand and the ship
PRANTALAYA 14 also belonged to Thailand. Thereafter PI Bharat
Bhoite recorded the statement of Director of the company P.T.
Interfisheries,asthesaidcompanyistheownerofthe PRANTALAYA
14. Some of the hostages were citizens of Myanmar. One of the
accusedviz.SoeMinAungsstatementwasrecordedon12/02/2011.
Theinjuredaccusedviz.RageC.Rissaq,whowasalreadyadmittedin
J.J. Hospital, was operated by the doctors and the doctors have
removedabulletfromhischest,whichwashandedovertoPCSanjay
Jagdale No.33092,laterpresentedtothe police station andhanded
over toinvestigatingofficer. In respect of which he hasprepareda
panchnamaandseizedthebullet.

5 During the process of investigation, on 15/02/2011,

identification parade of all the accused persons was conducted by
TahsildarShri.Patole.On16/02/2011onehostageviz.SoeMinAung
was admitted in J.J. Hospital, who was having a leg injury and the
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :8:

doctorshaveremovedmetalparticlesfromhisleg,whichPCJagdale
broughttoPoliceStationandhandedovertotheinvestigatingofficer,
whichwasseizedbyhimafterconductingseizurepanchnama. Later
statementofPCSanjayJagdalewasrecordedbyhim.On25/02/2011,
he has recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant
Pawan Kumar Yadav. He has also recorded the statement of Pilot
SudhirKumarKartarsinghRanafromtheCoastGuardDornierAircraft.
On09/03/2011,themetalparticle,whichwasremovedfromtheinjury
ofhostageSoeMinAungwassenttoChemicalAnalyser,Kalina. On
19/03/2011,thebullet,whichwasremovedfromtheinjuryofoneof
theaccusedviz.RageC.Rissaq,hadbeensenttoChemicalAnalyser
Kalina, Mumbai. On 20/03/2011, investigating officer proceeded to
conduct spot panchnama at the spot of incident. First he went to
Mangalore. ThereafterbyCoastGuardVaruna,heproceededtothe
spot100Kms.awayfromLakshadweepIslandinsidedeepsea. When
oneNavigatingOfficerJ.I.Josehadguidedthemtolocatetheexact
spotinthedeepsea,inrespectofwhichhehasalsopreparedalog
extractoftherouteoftheship,whichproceededforspotpanchnama
andhadalsohandedoveramapshowingthetrackchartformingpart
ofthepanchnama.

6 On 15/04/2011, he has recorded the statement of

LieutenantPrashantKumarMishra,INSCancarsoandon16/04/2011
statementofVishalVishwanathKarandewasrecorded.Similarlyonthe
sameday,thestatementsofHarpalSinghRajbirSinghandRambachan
RamdevYadavwererecorded. On 25/04/2011,investigatingofficer
hasrecordedthestatementofSubhalLawrenceNathan. Similarlyon
26/04/2011,thestatementofShri.MukulMurarilalGargwasrecorded
byhim. Theinvestigatingofficerhasalsocollectedmedicalevidence
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :9:

regarding injuries sustained by accused and injuries sustained by

hostagewitnesses.HehasalsocollectedopinionofBallasticExpert.

7 On29/04/2011,hehasfiledthechargesheetagainstall
the 15 accused Somalian Pirates in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate,16th Court,BallardPier,Mumbai. Alltheaccusedpersons
werecitizensofSomalia. Theinvestigatingofficerreceivedaletterof
EmbassyofSomaliastatingthattheaccusedareSomaliaCitizensand
shouldbehandedovertoGovernmentofSomalia.Ithasfurtherbeen
mentioned in the said letter that Indian crew members of merchant
vesselsmaybetargeted.

8 TheLd.MetropolitanMagistratehascommittedthecaseto
Sessions Court at Greater Bombay, as the offences punishable under
sectionsofIndianPenalCodeandu/sec.16&20ofUnlawfulActivities
(Prevention)AmendmentAct,2008areexclusivelytriablebythisCourt.

9 Accordingly, the accused persons appeared before the

Court.ThereafterchargewasframedagainsteachaccusedvideEx13
fortheoffencespunishableu/sec.143,144,147,148,353r/w149,
307r/w149,364r/w149,364Ar/w149,304r/w149,344r/w149,
427r/w149,438r/w149&506(2)r/w149oftheIndianPenalCode
(I.P.C.)r/wsections16&20UnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act,1967
r/wsections3,25&27ofIndianArmsAct. Thecontentsofcharge
were read over and explained with the help of accused no. 7, who
knowsEnglishLanguage,totheaccusedpersonsinSomalianLanguage,
towhichtheypleadednotguiltyandclaimedtobetried.

10 Duringthestageofhearingofthiscase,theapplications
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :10:

videEx137havebeenplacedonrecordonbehalfofaccusedpersons
forpleadingguilty.Atthisstage,SomaliEmbassyengagedLd.Adv.Mr.
VishwajeetSinghforaccusedpirates.MyLd.Predecessorhasrecorded
voluntaryandunconditionalpleaofguilttotheoffencechargedagainst
eachoftheaccused.Atthatpointoftime,myLd.Predecessorhasalso
madeawareeachoftheaccusedaboutconsequencesoftheirplea. It
hasalsobeendeclaredthatnoanypromise,inducementorcoercionor
duressorpressureplayedtorendersuchaplea.MyLd.Predecessorhas
observed that subsequent plea of guilt, after framing charge is not
contemplatedunderthe CodeofCriminalProcedure. However,itis
equallywellsettledthatiftheaccusedwillinglypleadguilty,thenhe
shallalsorequiretowaiveofhisrighttocrossexaminetheremaining
witnessesbeforetheCourtandaccepttheevidenceofthosewitnesses.
Atthatpointoftime,whenaccusedpleadedguilty,theprosecutionhas
already examined 14 witnesses and only investigating officer was
remaintobeexamined.Ithasalsobeenobservedthatatthestageof
framingcharge,theaccusedpleadsnotguilty,thentheCourtcannot
convict him without recording the evidence. Finally, my Ld.
Predecessorhasobservedthatrecordingandactingonthepleaofguilt
at any intermediate stage of the trial, is not permissible and would
amounttoconductthetrialdifferentfromtheprocedureprescribedby
theCodeofCriminalProcedure.Ithasalreadybeenmentionedthatat
that point of time nearly all the witnesses were examined and only
investigatingofficerwasremainedtobeexamined. Thusthesaidso
calledpleaofguilthasnotacteduponandmatterproceededfurther.

11 At the trial, the prosecution has examined in all fifteen

witnessesi.e. ServiceAsst.CommandentPawanKumarYadavas PW
No.1 videEx32, CommandantArunSatishchandraBahuguna,Indian
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :11:

NavyasPWNo.2videEx70,TahsildarTanajiShivajiPatoleasPWNo.
3videEx72,MukulMurarilalGargasPWNo.4videEx76,HCSanjay
KeshavJagdaleasPWNo.5videEx80,DhanrajUttamDhurandharas
PWNo.6 videEx83, SudhirKumarRanaas PWNo.7 videEx87,
Subhal Lawrence Nathan as PW No. 8 vide Ex89, Prashant Kumar
MishraasPWNo.9videEx9,RambachanRamdevYadavasPWNo.
10 videEx94, Dr.ManmohanVasantJagadeas PWNo.11 videEx
101,Dr.AjayS.ChandanwaleasPWNo.12videEx105,AnilDattatray
KharatasPWNo.13videEx109,SwamiDayalBhanotasPWNo.14
videEx109/A, BharatAtmaramBhoiteas PWNo.15 videEx140 to
bringhometheguiltofaccusedpersons.Besidesoftheoralevidence,
theprosecutionhasrelieduponthedocuments.Afterclosingevidence,
theprosecutionhasfiledtheevidenceclosurepursisvideEx162.

12 AtthestageofrecordingofstatementvideEx144to158
u/sec. 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all the accused were
explainedthattheyarenotboundtoanswerthesaidquestions.But,if
theyanswersaidquestions,then,theiranswerswillbebindingonthem.
The said explanation was translated into Somali Language by
Interpreters Mr. Farhan Mohammad Ali and Mr. Shine Mohammad.
Duringtheprocessofrecordingofstatementu/sec.313oftheCriminal
Procedure Code, the accused answered questions of incriminating
evidence in affirmative. In short, the accused accepted the
incriminatingevidenceagainstthem.Despiteofit,thisCourtisofthe
opinion that prosecution case is require to be evaluated on its own
merit.

13 Heard Ld. SPP Mr. Ranjeet V. Sangle on behalf of the

prosecutionandLd.DefenceCounselMr. VishwajeetSingh forallthe
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :12:

accusedpersons.

14 Consideringtheevidenceanddocumentsfiledonrecordby
boththesides,thefollowingpointsariseformydeterminationandI
haverecordedmyfindingsagainsteachofthemwiththereasonsstated
hereinbelow:

SR. POINTS FINDINGS

NO.

1 Whether prosecution has proved that on Inthe

28/01/2011 at a distance of about 59 NM at affirmative
10.21fromLakshadweep,alltheaccusedpersons
were the members of unlawful assembly in
pursuantofitscommonobject,tocommitpiracy,
to commit murder of hostages and public
servantsaswellasattempttocausemurderof
thepersons,indiscriminatelyopenedfirebyAK
47riflesaimingattheofficersandsailorsonINS
CANCARSOwithsuchintentionandundersuch
circumstancesthatbythatact,theywouldhave
been guilty of murder of officers on INS
CANCARSOandtherebytheaccusedpersonshad
committedanoffencepunishableu/sec.307r/w
149oftheIndianPenalCode?

2 Whether prosecution has proved that on the Inthe

above date, time and place, all the accused affirmative
personswerethemembersofunlawfulassembly
in pursuant of its common object, to commit
piracy, abducted and wrongfully confined
hostages/crew members on board of
PRANTALAYA 14 in order that they might be
murderedandtherebytheaccusedpersonshad
committedanoffencepunishableu/sec.364r/w
149oftheIndianPenalCode?

3 Whether prosecution has proved that on the Inthe

above date, time and place, all the accused negative
personswerethemembersofunlawfulassembly
in pursuant of its common object, to commit
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :13:

piracy,tocommitmurder of publicservantsas
wellasattempttocausemurderofthehostages,
abductedandwrongfullyconfinedtheminorder
toextractransomanddetainedthemandafter
such abduction, they threatened them to cause
theirdeathinordertocompelthegovernmentor
any foreign state or international inter
governmental organization or any other person
to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay
ransom and thereby the accused persons had
committed an offence punishable u/sec. 364A
r/w149oftheIndianPenalCode?

4 Whether prosecution has proved that on the Inthe

above date, time and place, all the accused affirmative
persons committed terrorist act resulting into
grievous hurt, injury and death of number of
persons and thereby the accused persons had
committed an offence punishable u/sec. 16 of
UnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act,1967?

5 Whether prosecution has proved that on the Inthe

above date and place, the accused persons negative
possesseddeadlyweaponssuchasAK47riflesas
well as Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers,
withoutlicenceandtherebytheaccusedpersons
had committed an offence punishable u/sec. 3
r/w25&27ofIndianArmsAct?

6 Does accused can be deported to their native Inthe

country? affirmative

7 Whatorder? Asperfinal
orderbelow

REASONS
AstoPointNos.1&2:
15 Boththepointsareinterlinkedwitheachother,henceitis
desirabletoconsiderallthethreepointssimultaneously.

16 Initially I would like to explain the burden upon the

Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :14:

prosecution. The prosecution is require to prove that the present

accused,inpursuanceoftheircommonobject,kidnappedorabducted
hostages of said merchant ships for ransom. At the same time, the
prosecutionisalsorequiretoprovethattheaccusedhaddonecriminal
actwithsuchaintentionorknowledgethatsaidcriminalactiscapable
ofcausingdeath. Itisneedlesstomention thattheseallthingsare
requiretoprovebeyondallreasonabledoubtsbytheprosecution.

17 Sofarassection307ofIndianPenalCodeisconcerned,I
wouldliketorefertheobservationoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthe
caseof Sagayamv/s.StateofKarnataka reportedin AIR2000SC
2161,whereinHon'bleLordshipoftheSupremeCourthaveobserved
that
Tojustifyconvictionu/sec.307,I.P.Code,itisnotessential
thatbodilyinjurycapableofcausingdeathshouldhavebeen
inflicted.Anattemptinordertobecriminalneednotbethe
penultimate act foreboding death. It is sufficient in law if
there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof, such act being proximate to the crime
intendedandiftheattempthasgonesofarthatitwouldhave
been complete but for the extraneous intervention which
frustrateditsconsummation. Therearedifferentstagesina
crime. First, the intention to commit it; second, the
preparationtocommitit;third,anattempttocommitit.Ifat
thethirdstage,theattemptfails,thecrimeisnotcompletebut
the law punishes for attempting the same. An attempt to
commitcrimemustbedistinguishedfromanintenttocommit
itorpreparationofitscommission.

18 Similarly,asfarassec364isconcerned,theprosecution
has toprovethatvictim wascarried away bythe accusedperson in
order to kidnap or abduct him or her has to be proved beyond
unreasonabledoubt.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :15:

19 Onthebasisofabovementionedpositionoflaw,Ipropose
to discuss the evidence on record. I have already mentioned the
prosecutionhasexaminedinall15witnesses. ThePWNo.1Service
Asst.CommandentPawanKumarYadavhasgracedthewitnessboxand
deposedvideEx32 thaton28/01/2011whilebeingpostedonboard
ICGSSankalpatabout12.20hrs.,hisshipgotdirectivesfromregional
head quarter West Zone to render assistance to Coast Guard 763, a
DornierAircraftnear130,SuheliParwhereonemerchantvesselCMA
CGMVERDI,59nauticalmileswithintheExclusiveEconomicZoneof
IndiahadraisedaMayDayCallofpiracy.PWNo.1hasfurtherstated
that his ship ICGS Sankalp proceeded and reached that area on
29/01/2011atabout4.10hrs.andtheysawthefoxelpartofaccused
piratemothervessel PRANTALAYA 14wasburning. Afterwaitingtill
about07.30hrs.,theysawtheaccusedpersonsandotherpirateson
liferaftofIndianNavy.Thentheytooktheaccusedpersonsonboard
theirsaidshipICGSSankalp. HisshipICGSSankalptook15accused
piratesfromtheliferaftand22hostages.ThesaidhostageswereThai
NationalsfromshipcalledINSCancarso(forthepurposeofbrevity,
thesaidshipwillbereferredasINSCancarso).Therewasonemore
Indian Navy Ship viz. Kalpeni in that area. The witness PW No. 1
claimedthathehimselfinterrogated15accusedpiratesandwerefound
to be Somalian, speaking Somalian Language. One of the accused
personsbeingUsmanSalad,aSomalianPirate,wasabletospeakHindi
andEnglishandwiththehelpofUsmanSalad,thewitnessinterrogated
allaccusedpirates.Hefurtherstatedthattheaccusedpersonsinformed
himthatUsmanSaladpaideachaccusedtheUS$100/forhijacking
andpromisedthatthe accusedpersonswouldbepaidmuchmoreif
theyhelptohijackamerchantvessel. Thewitnessfurtherstatedthat
hesearchedall15accusedpiratesanddidnotfindanyidentitycardor
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :16:

passport. Alltheaccusedpersonsalsoinformedhimthattheydont
haveanypassportoridentitycard.Hepreparedaquestionnaireforall
theaccusedpersonstogettheirclarification.

20 IthastranspiredfromtheevidenceofwitnessPWNo.1
PawanKumarYadavthatallaccusedpirateswerebroughtbyhimto
Mumbai. On 31/01/2011 at about 7.30 hrs., he handed over his
complaintandquestionnairedocumentstothePoliceOfficerinYellow
Gate Police Station. He has verified upon which crime/FIR was
registeredagainstall15accusedpirates.Hehassubmittedthecopyof
logbookofhisshipICGSSankalpdulysignedbyhimandcertifiedcopy
oftheElectronicChartdisplayedonIntegratedSystemonboardICGS
Sankalp duly signed by his Commanding Officer S.D. Bhanot, which
shows the area how they left the spot of information and how they
reachedtothespotandreturntoMumbai.Alistofaccusedpirateswas
submittedoncourtrecord,dulysignedbytheexecutiveofficerofICGS
Sankalp. Oneaccusedpiratewasdumbanddeafandonepirateviz.
RageC.Rissaqwashavinginjuriesonhisleg. PWNo.1hasfurther
statedthathehadpreparedquestionnairesandarrestformstoexplain
thegroundsofarrestanddetention. Thephotographsofallaccused
piratesweretakenonboardhisshipICGSSankalpbyoneofhisSailor
bycameraandthosephotographsweresignedbyallaccusedpirates
respectively along with questionnaires and arrest forms, which were
alsosigned byall accusedpiratesrespectively,with his signature on
eachsuchform. Heidentifiedallthesaidphotographs,allformsand
documents and handwritings of respective persons on them. His
statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer along with
clarification statement later on on 25/02/2011 and third time on
05/05/2012, in which he has stated that all accused pirates were
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :17:

detectedwithintheIndianEEZandfurtherthatUsmanSaladdisclosed
tohimthatoriginallytherewere25pirates,but10diedandtherefore
only15weredetectedanddetainedbyhimintherescueoperation.He
haspointedoutandidentifiedallaccusedpersonsbyfacewhileinthe
accusedsdockespeciallyUsmanSalad.

21 TheLd.SPPfortheStateMr.RanjeetSangleadvancedan
argumentthatthetestimonyofthiswitnessprovesthatthesaidoffence
hasbeencommittedwithintheterritorialadmiraltyjurisdictionofIndia.
Mr. Sangle has referred the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Act, 1860
andArticle372oftheConstitutionofIndia.Accordingtohisargument,
thesaidActprovidesthattheAdmiraltyOffences(Colonial)Act,1849
shall apply to British India. Moreover, it has not been repealed.
However,itismaterialtopointoutthatthecrossexaminationofsaid
PW No. 1 did not whisper any objection regarding admiralty
jurisdiction.AfterconsideringthetestimonyofPWNo.1,ittranspires
that on given date and time, the present accused were found with
burningvesselPRANTALAYA14. Eventheaccusedhaveacceptedthe
said testimony in their statement u/sec. 313 of Criminal Procedure
Code.TheevidenceofPWNo.1issupportingthecaseofprosecution
atcore.

22 NowIwillturntotheevidenceofPWNo.2Commandant
ArunSatishchandraBahuguna,IndianNavy.He hasdeposedvideEx
70thathewasCommandingOfficeronINSCancarsoon24/01/2011,
whichwasonpatrollingdutyonordersofFlagOfficerCommandingin
Chief (FOCINC), Western Naval Command. While patrolling near
MinicoyIslandsinLakshadweep,on28/01/2011theywereasSuheli
ParIslandwhenatabout1.00p.m. PWNo.2hasfurtherstatedthat
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :18:

theywereordertoproceedSouthtointerceptmothervesselofaccused
piratesviz.PRANTALAYA14,whichhadattemptedtohijackmerchant
vessel CMA CGM VERDI after which he along with other about 30
officersandsailorstogetherproceededtothespot.Theyproceededto
interceptmothervessel PRANTALAYA14ofaccusedpirates ataround
14.00hrs.around54nauticalmilestowardssouthofSuheliParand
reached close to the last reported position of accused pirate mother
vesselat16.30hrs.andsightedaccusedpiratemothervessel.Atabout
16.45 hrs., they contacted accused pirate mother vessel on channel
VHF16,buttherewasnoreplyfromaccusedmothervessel.PWNo.2
hasfurtherstatedthattheyagaincalledaccusedpiratemothervessel
andinformedaccusedpiratesthatMV PRANTALAYA14,thisisINS
Cancarso. Please stop and identify themselves.; but accused pirate
mothervesseldidnotreplyonchannel16andcontinuedanddidnot
stop. Atabout17.00hrs.,theyfiredwarningshotstowarnaccused
piratemothervesseltostopandrepeatedlywerecallingaccusedpirate
mothervesselonchannel16andyetanotherwarningshotwasfiredby
them. AtthattimeaccusedvesselPRANTALAYA14didnotstopand
instead fired tag at PW No. 2 and other Naval Staff. The witness
specificallystatedthattheaccusedpiratemothervessel PRANTALAYA
14didnotstopandinsteadfiredbackathimandhisshipINSCancarso,
butatwhichdistancetheycouldnotidentifytheweapon.Howeverthe
bullets fired by accused pirates went right above their heads, which
wereheardclearlyandthereforeinresponse,theyfiredbackataccused
pirate mother vessel with CRN91, 30 mm gun and LMG and MMG
guns. PWNo.2hasfurtherstatedthatthefiringwasdonesoasto
disablethepiratemothervesselandpreventretaliatoryfirefromthe
personson boardaccusedpirate mothervessel. The witnessfurther
statedthatatabout19.30hrs.,duetofiringbyINSCancarso,asmall
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :19:

fireeruptedonaccusedpiratemothervessel PRANTALAYA14, which

engulfed the ship and finally the mother vessel PRANTALAYA 14
stopped.TheysawpersonsonboardthePRANTALAYA14jumpingin
theseaandatabout8.00p.m.,theycommencedrescueoperationsto
pickupsurvivorsandtillabout10.00p.m.,theyhadrecoveredabout
15piratesandotherpersonsofmixedoriginsofThailand,Myanmar,
etc. and claimed that accused pirates are from Somalia, whom they
weredirectedtohandovertoICGSSankalp,whicharrivedlateron.
ThewitnessPWNo.2specificallyassertedthattheweaponsusedfrom
pirate mother vessel PRANTALAYA 14 was LMG and AK47 assault
rifles.Theytookthehostages/crewmemberstoKochiontheirshipINS
Cancarsoanddisembarkedaccusedpiratesonaliferaft,whichwasalso
watched by INS Kalpeni, which arrived at about 3.00 a.m. in the
morning of 29/01/2011. After recovering the fishermen from
PRANTALAYA 14onboardtheINSCancarso,theyfoundthatseveral
personswerehavingidentitycardsandotheridentificationdocuments
withSoutheastAsianandAfricanoriginandalsotheoriginalCaptain
of PRANTALAYA 14identifiedhisoriginalcrewmembersworkingon
the PRANTALAYA 14. Allwereinterrogatedandthedocumentswere
handed over to the concerned authorities at Kochi and the crew
memberswerehandedovertosouthernnavalcommand.PWNo.2has
further stated that in this operation, the Indian Navy had fired and
spentabout23roundsofCRN91,60roundsofMMGand30roundsof
LMG. He has submitted a log book extract from his ship with his
signature thereon and thereafter visually identified all the accused
piratesintheCourt.

23 Conspicuously,thecrossexaminationofPWNo.2indicates
thatthedefencehasnotdeniedspecificassertionmadebyPWNo.2
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :20:

thattheaccusedhavefiredtowardsthewitnessandmembersofIndian
Navy. ThesaidocularevidenceofPWNo.2hasgoneunchallenged.
Surprisingly,eventhesaidpieceofevidenceputduringthecourseof
statementu/sec.313ofCriminalProcedureCode,atquestion15,tothe
accused,buttheaccusedhavespecificallyadmittedthesaidevidence.
Moreover,thetestimonyofPWNo.2hasbeenspecificallycorroborated
bythetestimonyofPWNo.8SubhashLawrenceNathan(Ex89),PW
No.9PrashantKumarMishra(Ex90),PWNo.10RambachanRamdev
Yadav(Ex94). Iproposetodiscusstheevidenceofsaidwitnessesin
following paragraphs. However, as far as reliability of PW No. 2 is
concerned,itappearsthatthesaidwitnessiscreditworthyandhisoral
testimonyremainintactinallthevitalpartofthiscase.

24 PWNo.8SubhalLawrenceNathanhasdeposedvideEx89
that he was the Commanding Officer of INS Kalpeni, which was a
warshipofIndianNavyunderthecommandoftheFOCINCSouth,from
theperiodofMay2010toJune2011.ThePWNo.8deposedthatat
about14.00hrs.on28/01/2011,hereceivedamessagefromFOCINC
Souththatamerchantship CMACGM VERDIhadbeen attackedby
piratesinposition9/018N72/019EastclosetoSuheliParIsland,
which was monitored by an Indian Coast Guard Aircraft. He was
orderedtoproceedforassistanceofINSCancarso,whichwasinthe
areaandrespondingtotheincidentofthepirateattackwhereafterhe
immediatelysailedoutINCKalpeniandheadedfortheattackposition
athighspeed.PWNo.8hasfurtherstatedthatatabout21.30hrs.,he
wasinformedbyHQSouthernNavalCommand(SNC)thatCancarso
hadcarriedoutanengagementwithpiratevessel. Atabout1.00hrs.
on29/01/2011,PWNo.8reachedtheattackpositionandestablished
contactwithINSCancarsowhereCommandingOfficer,Lt.Cdr.Arun
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :21:

Bahuguna (PW No. 2) informed him that at about 17.00 hrs. on

28/01/2011,theyhadaskedthepiratevesselPRANTALAYA14tostop
andalsofiredwarningroundswhentheydidnotlisten,howeverthe
pirates fired at them and tried to run away. During the chase and
ensuring exchange of gunfire, the pirate vessel caught fire at about
19.30hrs.andthe people on the vesselthen startedjumpinginthe
water,astheboatslowlystartedsinking,whereafter,INSCancarsothen
recovered the survivors on board the ship and discovered that 14
persons were pirates (African Origin) and 20 persons were the boat
crew (Thai Origin), who were held hostage. PW No. 8 has further
statedthatthe14pirateswereputintoaliferaft,asdirectedearlier
andsetadriftwhilesearchcontinuedforremainingsurvivors.Lt.Cdr.
Bahugunatoldhimtocommencesearchingforsurvivors.Atabout2.30
hrs.,hespottedonesurvivorinthewaterclosetothesinkingpirate
vessel,whowasrecoveredbyhimonboardandoninquirylearntthat
he was one of the pirates and then at about 2.50 hrs., PW No. 8
transferred accused pirate to the liferaft along with the 14 other
pirates. Atabout3.20hrs.,HQSNCdirectedINSCancarsotohand
overthecustodyoftheliferaftwithpiratestohim(INSKalpeni)and
return to Kochi along with the rest of the survivors (20 crew). He
continuedsearchingforsurvivorswhilekeepinganeyeonthedrifting
liferaft. Atabout4.20hrs.CGSSankalp(CoastGuardShip)reached
theareaandestablishedcommunicationandasperordersofHQSNC
atabout7.20hrs.on29/01/2011,PWNo.8handedovercustodyof
theliferaftwith15piratestoCGSSankalpwhereafteratabout10.20
hrs. CGS Sankalp embarked the pirates on board, handed over the
emptyliferafttohimandsailedofftoMumbai.PWNo.8hasfurther
statedthaton24/01/2011onorderfromFlagOfficerGoaArea,the
shipsailedforpatrollingofL&MIslands(LakshadweepandMinicoy).
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :22:

TheshipenteredKochiHarbouron25/01/2011. Sameevening,the
ship sailed from Kochi to L & M Islands. On 26/01/2011, the ship
visitedL&MIslandsandstoppedcoursetowardsSuheliParIsland.On
28/01/2011ataround13.42hrs.,theygotmessagefromFOCINCWest
(Mumbai)thatCoastGuardDOhasreportedunsuccessfulpiracyattack
on CMA CGM VERDI, which is in position 130 degree 56 NM from
SuheliParIsland. Theshipbeinginthevicinityofthatlocationwas
orderedtoclosetotheindicatedpositionandinterceptthepiratesboat.
Theshipreachedareaat16.30hrs.on28/01/2011andhadaFishing
Boat/Dhoovisual. Withthehelpofbinocular,thenameofthevessel
wasidentifiedasPRANTALAYA14. Atthistimethevesselwas1.5
kmfromtheship.Thereaftertheshiptriedtocontactthepiratevessel
onMMBCH16saying'MerchantVesselPRANTALAYA14thisisIndian
WarShipCancarso,pleasestop'. However,theboatdidnotstopand
continuedtomaintainitsdirectionandspeed. PWNo.8hasfurther
stated that at about 17.00 hrs. Commanding Officer, Cdr. Arun
Bahuguna(PWNo.2)orderedtofirewarningshotbyCRN91gunin
air.Evenafterfiringofwarningshot,theboatdidnotstop.Theship
againtriedcallingtheboatonMMBCH16andaskedtheboattostop.
On the order from Commanding Officer, the ship again fired two
warningshots,howevertheboatdidnotstop.Thepirateboathowever
startedfiringontheirshipwithAK47,LMGandotherfirearms.The
bulletswereobservedtobepassingveryclosetotheship. Atabout
18.30hrs.,whenthepiratevesselwasnotrespondingtocallonMMB
CH16andfiringofwarningshots,theCommandingOfficerorderedto
fireonthefrontpartofshipi.e.bowofthepiratevesselandsoonthe
fireconvertedintoamajorfire. Itwasappreciatedthatallpersonnel
fromthepiratevesseljumpedintothewater. PWNo.8hasfurther
statedthatby20.00hrs.,theshiprescued13ofthefishermen/hostages
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :23:

on board and by 22.00 hrs. total 20 fishermen/hostages (Crew

Members) and the pirates were rescued on board. On asking the
rescued people, we could segregate them as Somalian Pirates and
Thailand/Myanmar Fishermen. The Myanmar Fishermen told them
that 3 boats named 'PRANTALAYA 11, 12 & 14' were captured by
SomalianPiratesinApril2010andweretakentoSomalia.InJanuary
2011 PRANTALAYA 14 sailed from Somalia with 25 pirates and 22
fishermen (Hostages) for undertaking piracy mission. It was
appreciatedthatduringthe operationtotal10piratesandoutof22
fishermen,2werelostatsea(drowned).Onepiratewashurtbybullet
attheupperpartofhischestand3fishermensufferednominalinjury.
Afterrescuingpeoplefromwater,theshiphadstrengthof65(including
pirates and fishermen). Thinking of danger from pirates, the ship
loweredaliferaftanddisembarkedthepiratestotheliferaftandwas
keptunderwatch.PWNo.8hasfurtherstatedthaton29/11/2011at
3.00 hrs., INS Kalpeni reached at site for help and found one more
pirateonthedebrisofsinkingPRANTALAYA14andrescuedhimon
boardatwhichtimetheFOCINC,Mumbaiorderedtohandoverthe
piratestoINSKalpeniandreturntoKochialongwith20fishermen.At
about3.30hrs.,theshipwashandedovertheliferaftwithpiratesto
KalpeniandstartedvoyagetoKochi. Theycametoknowthatafter
theirshipleftthesceneofaction,INSKalpenihandedoverthepirates
toICGSSankalpforjourneytoMumbai.Duringtheoperation,hisship
fired total 23 rounds of CRN 91 gun and MMG/LMG fired 60/30
rounds.

25 Perusalofthecrossexaminationofthesaidwitnessshows
thatithasbeensuggestedthathewasnotpresentatthetimewhen
operationwastakenplace.ThePWNo.8candidlyadmittedthatheis
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :24:

notsureastowhetherhehadgivenanydocumentaryprooftopoliceto
provehisphysicalpresenceonthedateoftheincident.However,the
PWNo.8hasspecificallydeniedthesuggestionthathewasnotpresent
onthedayof the incidentatKalpeni. Surprisingly,no anypositive
suggestionputforthtowitnessastohissubmissionaboutfiringbythe
accusedonIndianNavy.Moreso,thereisnoanysuggestionputtothe
saidwitnesswherebyhehasstatedthathostageswereonboard.Itis
materialtopointoutthatwitnessspecificallystated13hostageswere
rescuedfromtheclutchesoftheaccusedperson.Thus,thetestimonyof
PW No. 8 regarding firing by the accused through AK47, LMG and
other fire arms as well as rescue of 13 hostage were remain
unchallenged.ThereisnoanymaterialbeforetheCourtonthebasisof
whichthetestimonyofPWNo.8canbedoubted.Thesaidtestimony
wascorrespondingtotheoralevidenceofPWNos.2,9&10.Itisalso
materialtonotethattheaccusedhasacceptedthesaidevidenceduring
theprocessofstatementu/sec.313ofCr.P.C.

26 PWNo.9PrashantKumarMishra hasdeposedvideEx90
thathewastheGunneryOfficeronboardINSCancarsobetweenApril
2010andMay2011. Whilesailingandpatrolling,theyhadstopped
course towards Suheli Par Island. On 28/01/2011 at around 13.42
hrs.,theygotmessagefromFOCINCWest(Mumbai)thatCoastGuard
DOhasreportedunsuccessfulpiracyattackonCMACGMVERDI,which
isinposition130degree56NMfromSuheliParIslandandhisship
being in the vicinity of that location was ordered to close to the
indicatedpositionandinterceptthepiratesboat.Hisshipreachedarea
at16.30hrs.on28/01/2011andhadaFishingBoat/Dhaovisual.With
the help of binocular, the name of the vessel was identified as
PRANTALAYA14atwhichtimethevesselwas1.5KMfromtheship.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :25:

HisshiptriedtocontactaccusedpiratevesselonMMBCh16saying
Merchant Vessel PRANTALAYA 14 this is Indian Warship Cancarso,
pleasestop.However,theboatdidnotstopandcontinuedtomaintain
itsdirectionandspeed.PWNo.9hasfurtherstatedthatatabout17.00
hrs.CommandingOfficer,Cdr.ArunBahuguna(PWNo.2)orderedto
firewarningshotbyCRN91inair,evenafterfiringofwarningshotthe
boatdidnotstop.TheshipagaintriedcallingtheboatonMMBCH16
and asked the boat to stop and then on order of the Commanding
Officertheshipagainfiredtwowarningshots,howevertheboatdidnot
stop,butinsteadaccusedpiratevesselstartedfiringonhisshipwith
AK47,LMGandotherfirearmsandthebulletswereobservedtobe
passingveryclosetotheship. Ataround18.30hrs.whenthepirates
vesselwasnotrespondingtocallonMMBCH16andfiringofwarning
shots,theCommandingOfficerorderedfiringonthefront/bowofthe
piratesvesselwithLMG,MMGandCRN.Ataround20.00hrs.,theship
observedaminorfireonthefrontpartofshipi.e.bowofthepirate
vessel and soon the fire converted into a major fire and it was
appreciatedthatallpersonnelfromthepiratevesseljumpedintothe
water.PWNo.9hasfurtherstatedthatby20.00hrs.theshiprescued
13 fishermen/hostages on board and by 22.00 hrs. total 20
fishermen/hostages(crewmembers)andthepirateswererescuedon
boardandonaskingtherescuedpeople,theycouldsegregatethemas
Somalian Pirates and Thailand/Myanmar fishermen. The Myanmar
fishermen toldthem that3boatsnamedPRANTALAYA11,12&14
were captured bySomalian Piratesin April 2010andweretakento
Somalia. InJanuary2011PRANTALAYA14sailedfromSomaliawith
25piratesand22fishermen(hostages)forundertakingpiracymission.
Itwasappreciatedthatduringtheoperationtotal10piratesandoutof
22fishermen,2fishermenwerelostatsea(drowned).Onepiratewas
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :26:

hurtbybulletattheupperpartofhischestand3fishermensuffered
nominalinjury.PWNo.9furtherstatedthatafterrescuingpeoplefrom
water,theshiphadstrengthof65(includingpiratesandfishermen)
and thinkingof danger from piratesthe ship lowered a liferaft and
disembarkedthepiratestotheliferaftandwaskeptunderwatch.PW
No.9hasfurtherstatedthaton29/11/2011at3.00hrs.,INSKalpeni
reached at site for help and found one more pirate on the sinking
PRANTALAYA14andrescuedhimonboardatwhichtimetheFOCINC,
MumbaiorderedtohandoverthepiratestoINSKalpeniandreturnto
Kochialongwith20fishermenandatabout3.30hrs.,theshiphanded
overtheliferaftwithpiratestoKalpeniandstartedvoyagetoKochi.
Theycametoknowthataftertheirshipleftthesceneofaction,INS
Kalpeni handed over the pirates to ICGS Sankalp for journey to
Mumbai.Duringtheoperation,hisshipfiredtotal23roundsofCRN91
gunandMMG/LMGfired60/30rounds.HewastoperformdutyofIn
charge of Executive Officer in his absence and to work as Gunnery
Officerandnavigatingofficeralsoandhadtomaintaintherecordof
ammunition. By virtue of visual identification and the passports
possessedby the personson the ship Cancarso,itwas revealedthat
personsarefromThailandandMyanmar.

27 Thus,thesaidwitnesshasspecificallystatedthataccused
havestartedfiringonNavelshipwithAK47,LNGandotherfirearms.
Hehasfurtherstatedthatbulletswerepassingverycloselyfromthe
Navelship. Moreover,hehasstatedthattheyhaverescuedhostages
fromMyanmarandThailand.PerusalofcrossexaminationofPWNo.9
indicates that there is no specific denial on the part of defence in
respect of alleged firing and rescue of hostages. The said piece of
evidence remained intact in all the vital part of the case. The said
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :27:

incriminatingevidencewasreadovertotheaccusedduringstatement
u/sec.313ofCr.P.C.towhichtheaccusedhaveacceptedthesameas
true. Ihavealreadymentionedthatthetestimonyofthiswitnessis
correspondingtotheassertionsmadebyPWNos.2&8. Ihaveno
reasontoraisedoubtabouttheveracityofPWNo.9.

28 PW No.10Rambachan RamdevYadav hasdeposed vide

Ex94 thaton24/01/2011hewasatGoaonboardINSCancarso,as
senior most Executive Sailor and from 25/05/2010, he was on INS
CancarsowithheadquarterinGoaNavalAreaandFlagOfficerGoa
Naval Area had given them an order for patrolling at Lakshadweep,
Minicoy,KawratiandassuchtheyproceededandreachedCochinon
25/01/2011 itself and in evening they started onward journey to
LakshadweepandMinicoyandon27/01/2011reachedSuheliParby
makingpatrollingonLakshadweep&Minicoy.Hereceivedamessage
on28/01/2011,atabout13.42hrs.fromFOCINC,Mumbaiwhichsaid
thatnearbySuheliParplaceat130degreetowardssouthernsidethere
waspiracyattackandthedistancebetweentheirshipandtheplaceof
attackwas56nauticalmilesandthenameoftheshipthatwasattacked
was named merchant vessel CMA CGM VERDI and the attack was
witnessedbyaCoastGuardaircraft.PWNo.10hasfurtherstatedthat
thereaftertheirCommandingOfficerLt.CommandantArunBahuguna
(PWNo.2)gavethemacommandtoproceedthereandthereafterthey
66personsinINSCancarsoalongwithitreachedplaceoftheattackat
16.30hrs.andsawthroughbinocularthattherewasafishingtrawler
andnoticeditsname,whichwasseenasPRANTALAYA14.Theygave
calltothesamebyVHFi.e.VeryHighFrequencyChannelNo.16.He
had instrument of radio set, which is mandatory in every sea going
vesselduetoassistanceofwhichpersonsfromtwovesselsmayinteract
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :28:

or inter exchange the messages by voice and it is international

communication system and gave message to accused pirates on
PRANTALAYA 14 to stop and informed that they were from INS
Cancarso, but accused pirates did not stop. Therefore their
Commanding Officer gave an order to fire a warning shot ahead to
PRANTALAYA14intheairfromCRN91(whichisagun)andthesaid
orderwasgiventohimandhiscollegeHarpalSinghandaccordingly
theyfiredoneroundfromCRN91andthereafterLt.Mishraagaingave
a warning call to stop however PRANTALAYA 14 did not stop and
hence,commandingofficerorderedthemtofiretwoshotsbyCRN91
andaccordinglytheyfiredtwoshotsbyCRN91intheair,however
PRANTALAYA 14stilldidnotstop. Insteadofstopping,ontheother
handthepersonsinPRANTALAYA14startedfiringfromgunlikeAK47
towardsthemandassuchacommandwasgiventoustomakefiringin
reply by CRN 91, LMG & MMG, on the front side of ship i.e. bow
(Foxle) of the attacking vessel and accordingly they fired shots and
firing from both sides continued till 19.30 hrs. at which time they
noticed that PRANTALAYA 14 caught fire on the foxle part which
spreadoverandtheywereorderedtoforeclosethefiringafternoticing
thefirewhereaftertheystoppedfiring. PWNo.10hasfurtherstated
thattheynoticedpeoplefrom PRANTALAYA 14werejumpinginthe
water by shrieking as save save and therefore their Commanding
Officeraskedthemtosavethosepeopleandthereaftertheycaptured13
Somalian accused pirates and 20 fishermen from Myanmar and
Thailandbetween20.00to22.00hrs.fromwaterandfurtheratabout
22.00hrs.theycapturedonemoreSomalianPiratefromthewaterand
kepttheminINSCancarsoandfurtherthatonepersonoutofaccused
pirateshadreceivedfirearminjuryonhischestand3fishermenwere
alsoseenhavingreceivedminorinjuries,atwhichtimetherewere65
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :29:

personsintheirship.Duetononavailabilityofspaceintheirshipthey
shiftedthepiratesintheliferaft,moresoas14piratesweredangerous
andthereaftercalledINSKalpeniforhelp,whilekeepingwatchonthe
liferaft. PWNo.10hasfurtherstatedthaton29/01/2011atabout
3.00hrs.INSKalpenishipcametotheirassistanceandtheirFOCINC
directedthemtohandoverthepiratestotheofficersatINSKalpeniand
thefishermenshallbetakentoCochinandassuchwhentheyhanded
over14accusedpiratestoINSKalpeni,theysawthatofficersfromINS
Kalpenicapturedonemorepiratefromthesameareaandthereafteras
perthecommandtheyproceededtowardsCochinafter3.30hrs.and
furtherthataftertakingcustodyofliferaftof14piratesINSKalpeni
handeditovertoICGSSankalpwhichtooktheliferaftwithpiratesat
Mumbai.Theyfired23roundsofCRN91,60roundsofMMGand30
roundsofLMG(LightMachineGun).

29 The evidence of PW No. 10 is consistent with the

testimoniesofPWNos.2,8&9.Thesaidwitnesscategoricallystated
thataccusedhadfiredthroughsophisticatedweapons.Moreover,the
witness has also describe how the hostages from Mynamar and
Thailand were rescued. He was crossexamined by the Ld. defence
advocate. However, it appears from his testimony that he can not
specifywhowasexactlyfiringatthem.Inrespectofthisadmission,it
hastobeseenthattheincidentoccurredatlateevening.Inthenormal
circumstances, one can not visualize things, if there is a darkness.
However,thereisnodenial thatthefiringwascomingfrompirates
shipandaccusedwereoccupyingthesaidship.Itisalsoimportantto
note that the said piece of evidence has been putforth to the same
accused during the statement u/sec 313 of Cr.P.C., to which they
replied affirmatively. Under such a circumstances, the above
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :30:

mentionedallegedadmissionismeaningless.

30 IhavealreadyreferredthatthetestimoniesofPWNos.2,
8,9&10areconsistentwitheachother.Allofthemspecificallystated
that accused have fired on them with deadly weapons like AK47.
Moreover, all the witnesses have consistently stated that they have
rescuedhostages frompiratedship. Conspicuously,allthe accused
acceptedtheversionofthesaidwitnessduringstatementu/sec313of
Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, I conclude that all the necessary
ingredientsofsections307&364havebeenproved. Hence Ianswer
PointNos.1&2intheaffirmative.

AstoPointNo.3:

31 As far as section 364A of IPC is concern, the basic

ingredientsrequiretoprovethattheprosecutionhastoprovethatthe
kidnappedorabductedpersonorpersonswas/werethreatenedtobe
killedorcausedhurtinordertocompeltheGovernmentoranyforeign
Stateorinternationalorganizationoranypersontopayransom.

32 In the present case, the prosecution has cited in all six

witnessesofThailandorMyanmarcountries.Surprisingly,noneofthe
saidwitnesshasappearedtogracethewitnessbox.TheLd.SPPforthe
StateShri.RanjeetSanglehasadvancedanargumentandspecifiedhow
mucheffortstheprosecutionhastakentobringthesaidwitnessesinto
witnessbox.Hehascitedcertaindocumentsi.e.letterswrittentothe
respective Embassies through Government of Maharashtra and
AdvocateGeneralofThailandthroughdiplomaticchannels.Truly,the
prosecutionhastakengenuineeffortstobringthesaidwitnessesfrom
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :31:

Thailand and Mynamire before this Court. But, the apathy and
indifferentattitudebytheconcernGovernmentsofforeigncountries,
thesaidwitnessescouldnothavebeenproduced.

33 In the present case, none of the witness from the

prosecutionsidehasafirsthandinformationthatthepresentaccused
havegivendeaththreatsorthreattohurtsaidhostagesforransom.It
hastoberememberedthatthepunishmentforoffenecu/sec.364Aof
IPCisofdeathorimprisonmentforlife.Obviously,asperestablished
principleoflawifthereisastrictpunishment,thenstrictproofrequire
to award such punishment. Therefore, as far as section 364A is
concern, there is no any clear and substantive proof from the
prosecution side. Eventhe testimoniesofPWNos.2&8to10are
silentaboutthisaspect.ThoughthetestimoniesofPWNos.2&8to10
speakatlengthasfarasfiringandusingdeadlyweaponsonthepartof
accused,but,noneofthemspeaksaboutanydeaththreatorthreatto
hurttothehostagesforransom. Hence Ianswer PointNo.3inthe
negative.

AstoPointNo.4:

34 Inordertoprovebeingamemberofterroristorganization
andinvolvedinaterroristact,theprosecutionisrequiretoprovethe
ingredientsofsection15oftheUnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act,
1957,whereinitisspecificallydefinedthatwhoeverdoesanyactwith
intenttothreatenorlikelytothreatensecurityorsovereigntyofIndia
withintenttostriketerrorwithanysectionofthepeopleinIndiaby
using explosive substances or firearms or other lethal weapons,
commits a terrorist act. In the light of said provisions of above
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :32:

mentionedact,Iproposetodiscusstheevidenceonrecord.

35 TheLd.SPPfortheStatehasadvancedanargumentthat
theoffencehadtakenplacewithintheadmiraltyjurisdictionofIndia.
Theaccusedusedfirearmsatthedistanceofabout59NMat10.21
fromLakshdweepIsland.Theactonthepartoftheaccusedisnothing
more than a challenge to the sovereignty of India. I have already
discussedintheearlierpartofthisjudgmentthatPWNos.2&8to10
have specifically asserted that accused had used firearms including
various types of lethal weapons. The said testimonies remained
unchallenged. Undoubtedly, the accused have entered Indian
AdmiraltyJurisdictionillegallywithintentiontocommitcrime. They
haveusedfirearmsagainsttheIndianNavyPersonnel.Thisevidenceis
sufficienttoprovethesaidpointbeyondreasonabledoubt. Hence I
answerPointNo.4intheaffirmative.

AstoPointNo.5:

36 Thoughtheprosecutionhasclaimedthatthereisviolation
ofprovisionsofsection3r/w25&27ofIndianArmsAct.Surprisingly,
theinvestigatingofficerhasnotseizedanyweaponspertainingtothis
case.ThejudicialnotecanbetakenofthefactthatduringtheNaval
Operation,nearly four operations were taken into effect. Itappears
thattheweaponsseizedfromaccusedinallthefouroperationsmust
havebeencollectedatonepointandthesaidweaponsmusthavebeen
shown in other two or three offences. Therefore, in this case, the
investigating officer has failed to show any seizure of weapon.
Nevertheless,thisCourtcannotconvicttheaccusedunderIndianArms
Act without seizure of any illegal weapon or illegal arm from the
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :33:

custody of accused. The prosecution has failed to prove this point.

HenceIanswerPointNo.5inthenegative.

AstoPointNo.6:

37 HereinIwouldliketoplacerelianceupontheobservation
oftheHon'bleBombayHighCourtinthecaseof ChristianusAeros
Mintodo vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.
541/2003),whereintheHon'bleLordshiphasdirectedtodeportnine
accused, who were nationals of Indonesia. In the light of said
observationofHon'bleBombayHighCourt,thestayofaccusedpirates
isillegalafterreleasefromtheprison.Hence,thepresentaccusedare
requiretobedeportedtotheircountryi.e.Somaliaaftertheyreleased
fromtheprison.Therefore,IanswerPointNo.6intheaffirmative.

38 At this stage, I am taking pause and propose to give

audiencetoalltheaccusedpiratesandargumentstothateffectfrom
theLd.DefenceAdvocateaswellastheStateonthepointofsentence.

(JayendraC.Jagdale)
TheAdditionalSessionsJudge,
CitySessionsCourt,
Dated:02/08/2017Gr.Bombay.

39 HeardLd.Spl.P.P.Mr.RanjeetV.Sangleonthequantumof
sentence.Hehasstatedthatthisisaexceptionalcasesincethepirates
areapprehendedbytheconcernedagencies. Inthelightofevidence
andthefactsofcase,Ld.SPPhasprayedthataseriousviewbetakenby
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :34:

theCourt. Hehasfurtherstatedthattheprosecutionhasprovedits
case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence maximum sentence be
imposedontheaccusedpersons.

40 Ld. Advocate of the defence Mr. Vishwajeet Singh has

advancedthearguments. He hasspecificallystatedthatthe present
accused persons have pleaded guilty and also admitted the
incriminating evidence during the process of recording of their
statementsu/sec.313ofCodeofCriminalProcedure.Hehasreferred
andcitedvariousjudgmentsonrecord.Iwouldliketoreferthesame.

41 TheLd.DefenceAdvocateMr.VishwajeetSinghhasplaced
relianceupontheobservationsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecase
ofFrancis@Ponnanv/s.StateofKeralaandBhagwantav/s.State
ofMaharashtra reportedin AIR1974SC2281,whereinitisheldby
theHon'bleLordshipsthattheCourtsaregenerallyconcernedonlywith
thenatureandextentofpunishmentcalledfor,oncetheaccused'sguilt
isestablished.Inconsideringthequestionofappropriatesentencetobe
awarded, while the common frailties andfailingsof ordinary human
beings, to which the offender gives vent, may, without affecting the
criminality of the acts punished, be enough to show that a lesser
sentencewillmeettheendsofjustice,abnormaltwistsofthemindor
indications of an obdurate and unrelenting viciousness of mind and
conductoftheoffendermayshowtheneedforaseverersentence.

42 TheLd.DefenceAdvocateMr.VishwajeetSinghhasalso
placedrelianceupontheobservationsoftheHon'bleApexCourtinthe
caseofStateofMadhyaPradeshv/s.SantoshKumarreportedinAIR
2006SC2648,whereinitisheldbytheHon'bleLordshipsthatthereis
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :35:

no formula of a foolproof nature is possible, that would provide a

reasonablecriteriaindeterminingajustandappropriatepunishmentin
the infinite variety of circumstances that may provide any basis for
reasonablecriteriatocorrectlyassessvariouscircumstancesgermaneto
theconsiderationofgravityofthecrime,thediscretionaryjudgmentin
thefactsofeachcaseistheonlywayinwhichsuchjudgmentmaybe
equitablydistinguished.

43 TheLd.DefenceAdvocateMr.VishwajeetSinghhasfurther
statedthatalltheaccusedpersonshavetheirfamilyandleniencybe
showntothemasregardstothequantumofsentence.

44 Onthequantumofsentence,theaccusednos.1to15are
heard. Interpreter/firstSecretarytotheSomalianEmbassyinIndiais
calledupontoasktheaccusedpersonsastowhattheydesiretosayon
thequantumofsentence. ItisinterpretedinSomalianLanguageby
interpreter/firstSecretarytotheSomalianEmbassyinIndia toallthe
accused.

45 Theaccusedareinjailsincelastmorethansixyears.This
factumalongwithaviewofwhathasbeenstatedhereinabove,Ifeel
that the following sentences will be sufficient to meet the ends of
justice.

46 Intheresult,Iproceedtopassthefollowingorder:

ORDER
1 Accusedno.1USMANSALADEID
Accusedno.2KHALIFFARAHADEN
Accusedno.3ABDIRISAQBASHIRHILELO
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :36:

Accusedno.4MOHAMMEDALIMOHAMMAD
Accusedno.5HABIBMEHMOODSARAH
Accusedno.6BONJHONALI
Accusedno.7MOHAMMADABDULAHIHASAN
Accusedno.8AWAYSARTANMOHAMMAD
Accusedno.9YASIRCHAMADIRIYE
Accusedno.10AHMEDABDIHASSAN
Accusedno.11MOHAMMADABDULLAHIBARRE
Accusedno.12BASHIRUMMERMOHAMMAD
Accusedno.13FARAHCHAMAFARAH
Accusedno.14ABSHIRABDIHUSEN
Accusedno.15RAGEC.RISSAQABDILE

are hereby convicted u/sec. 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973fortheoffencepunishableu/sec.307r/w149oftheIndianPenal
Codeandsentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentofsevenyearsand
topayfineofRs.5,000/(Rs.FiveThousandOnly)each.Indefaultof
paymentoffine,theyshallsuffersimpleimprisonmentforsixmonths.

2 Accusednos.1to15arefurtherconvictedfortheoffence
punishableu/sec.364r/w149oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentenced
tosufferrigorousimprisonmentofsevenyearsandtopayfineofRs.
3,000/(Rs.ThreeThousandOnly)each.Indefaultofpaymentoffine,
theyshallsuffersimpleimprisonmentforfourmonths.

3 Accusednos.1to15arefurtherconvictedfortheoffence
punishableu/sec.16ofUnlawfulActivities(Prevention)Act,1967and
sentencedtosufferrigorousimprisonmentoffiveyearsandtopayfine
ofRs.3,000/(Rs.ThreeThousandOnly)each.Indefaultofpayment
offine,theyshallsuffersimpleimprisonmentforfourmonths.

4 Substantivesentencestorunconcurrently.
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :37:

5 Accused nos. 1 to 15 are in judicial custody. They are

entitledtogetsetoff u/sec.428ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. Theyaregivensetofffortheperiodalreadyundergoneinthe
prisoni.e.from31/01/2011tilltoday.

6 Accusednos.1to15areherebyacquittedoftheoffences
punishableu/sec.364Ar/w149oftheIndianPenalCodeandu/sec.3
r/w25&27ofIndianArmsAct,videsection235(1)oftheCodeof
criminalProcedure,1973.

7 Themuddemalpropertyproducedbytheprosecutionvide
VPRNo.79/2012i.e.bulletinonepacket(ArticleA)andpieceofbullet
(ArticleB)bereturnedtoCommissionerofPolice,Mumbaifordisposal
ofthesameaspertheprovisionselaboratedinCriminalManual,after
the appeal period is over and discharge card issued by Orthopedic
Department(ArticleC)bekeptintheproceedingofcase.

8 TheStateisdirectedtodeportaccusednos.1to15totheir
nativeStatei.e.Somalia,afterreleasefromtheprison.

9 Thecopiesofjudgmentbesuppliedtotheaccusedpirates
freeofcost.

(JayendraC.Jagdale)
TheAdditionalSessionsJudge,
CitySessionsCourt,
Dated:02/08/2017Gr.Bombay.
Dictatedon :02/08/2017
Transcribedon :02/08/2017
Signedon :02/08/2017
DeliveredtoCertified :
CopySectionon
Judgment in Sessions Case No. 425/2011 :38:

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed

judgment/order.
UploadDate&Time:02/08/2017at3.25p.m.
Smt.G.K.Kotawadekar
NameoftheStenographer

H.H.J.SHRI.JAYENDRAC.JAGDALE(C.R.No.51)
Dateofpronouncementofjudgment/order:02/08/2017
Judgment/ordersignedbytheP.O.on:02/08/2017
Judgment/orderuploadedon:02/08/2017