Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
accusedpersons.
14 Consideringtheevidenceanddocumentsfiledonrecordby
boththesides,thefollowingpointsariseformydeterminationandI
haverecordedmyfindingsagainsteachofthemwiththereasonsstated
hereinbelow:
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?
7 Whatorder? Asperfinal
orderbelow
REASONS
AstoPointNos.1&2:
15 Boththepointsareinterlinkedwitheachother,henceitis
desirabletoconsiderallthethreepointssimultaneously.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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).
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:
Thailand and Mynamire before this Court. But, the apathy and
indifferentattitudebytheconcernGovernmentsofforeigncountries,
thesaidwitnessescouldnothavebeenproduced.
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:
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.
(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.
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:
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
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:
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:
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