JAHIRUL SK. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dtd. 22/09/2011 and order of sentence dtd. 23/09/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 8 (5) 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under sec. 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The de-facto complainant Pradip Sarkar lodged a written complaint on 07/12/2007 in Tufangunj Police Station alleging kidnapping of his minor son Parthib Sarkar alias Palas Sarkar by the appellant. It was alleged in the written complaint that on 06/12/2007 at about 01:30 hours at night his wife suddenly woke up from sleep and found her four years son Parthib alias Palas Sarkar was missing from the bed and doors of the room was open. In spite of thorough searching the boy could not be found out that night. The de-facto complainant lodged ejahar in Tufangunj Police Station reporting the missing of his son. Police authorities began investigation and came to know from a source the whereabouts of the boy and rescued him from one Baneswar Burman with help of one of his relatives. It also came to knowledge that the appellant along with one Fazar Ali and Barek Seikh kidnapped the boy for ransom. The written complaint was received by Tufangunj Police Station on 07/12/2007 at 18:05 hours. On the basis of the said written complaint Tufangunj Police Station Case No. 110/07 dtd. 07/12/2007 under Sec. 363/364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.

(3.) The trial court, in terms of the impugned judgment acquitted the accused Barek Sk. And Fazar Ali but convicted the appellant and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000.00 in default of which a further imprisonment of one month under sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court also sentenced the appellant with rigorous imprisonment of same terms and same fine under sec. 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.