KAUSHIK DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in brief in the instant revision petition are that on 5/11/2013, one Sri Ashish Kanti Saha, S/o Lt. Manomohan Saha, R/o Town Sukumar Colony, P.S. Birganj, Amarpur, Gomati Tripura lodged a written ejahar to the O/C Nutan Bazar P.S. to the effect that on 3/11/2013, evening at around 5 P.M., accused-Kaushik Das came to his house and told him that he will visit Natunbazar to see the Kali Puja along with the son of the informant, namely, Prasenjit Saha. Despite the objection of the informant, accused Kaushik Das took his son Prasenjit to Natunbazar to see the Kali Puja. On 4/11/2013, evening at around 4 PM, when the informant called his son over the telephone, both of them informed him that on 4/11/2013 they won't return to Amarpur. On 5/11/13 morning at around 8.30 AM when the informant called his son, he found his mobile to be switched off. Later, on 5/11/2013, morning at around 11 A.M., the maternal uncle of Kaushik Das, namely, Sri Bikash Shil (Bhutta) called in the mobile of the elder son of the informant and informed that both his son and Kaushik Das are untraceable since yesterday night. Thereafter, the informant and his wife visited Nautunbazar and came to know that Kaushik Das, Shankar Banik, Sajar Sarkar, and 4/5 others conjointly kidnapped his son and kept him in their custody. From different people, the informant came to know that his son Prasenjit Saha and Kaushik Das spent their night in the house of the one Abinash Shil near Juva Samaj Club. As the informant visited the house of Abhinash Shil, he could see Kaushik Das but did not find his son.

(2.) Based upon the aforesaid written ejahar Natunbazar P.S. Case No.46/2013 dtd. 5/11/2013 was registered against the petitioner herein, Shankar Das, Sajal Sarkar and 4/5 unnamed persons under Sec. 365/34 IPC. Subsequently, the case was investigated by CID and vides C.S. No.05/15 and Natunbazar P.S. dtd. 10/3/2015 charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Sec. 202 of IPC the definition of which is as follows:-

(3.) During hearing on framing of charge, vide order dtd. 28/8/2015, the learned Trial Court after considering all materials discharged the present accused-petitioner from the liability of the case. Thereafter, the informant Sri Ashish Kanti Das before this Hon'ble High Court filed Crl. Petn No.49 of 2015 challenging the aforesaid order of discharge and vide order dtd. 22/11/2018, this Hon'ble Court was kind enough to set aside the order of discharge dtd. 28/8/2015 and directed the learned trial Court to frame charge against the present petitioner under Sec. 202 of IPC or other appropriate charging provision.