ASHOK ROY Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Siliguri is Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2004 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 31(1) 2003 arising out of Phansidewa Police Station Case No. 24 of 2003 dated 17.2.2003 G.R. No. 169 of 2003 under Section 364A, 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rupees 2000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further six months for committing offence under Section 364A/302/201 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.2.2003 the de facto complainant Nemai Roy of Chaupukhuria (Kestopur), under Police Station Phansidewa while he was busy in shifting his household articles to the rented premises of one Manu Hossain at Behar More house from his native place, his minor son Munna Roy @ Guddu aged about 6 years was in his house at Kestopur. At about 4:30 P.M. his nephew namely Ashok Roy @ Bappa came to inform him that at about 11:00 A.M. when he was going with the son of the de facto complainant by his bicycle from Kestopur to Bagdogra, some unknown miscreants kidnapped the said son of the de facto complainant by Maruti Van and told that they would release his son if a ransom of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to them within 11:00 A.M. at Kharibari Bus stand. The de facto complainant was not satisfied with such statement of his nephew about kidnapping of his son in order to compel him to give a ransom. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged. After completion of investigation the I.O. submitted charge sheet under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract 3rd Court, Siliguri who framed Charges under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and after closure of evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Defence case is a denial of the prosecution case which emerges from the cross-examination of the witnesses and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction and sentence on the grounds inter alia that the learned Trial Judge did not appreciate that extrajudicial confession as alleged to be made by the appellant is not admissible in Law and that there are contradictory oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses No. 1, 10 and 14 regarding the place of recovery of the dead body and P.W.-13 Mannu Hossain who deposed that the dead body was recovered by the police. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the act of kidnapping by the appellant and learned Judge has failed to consider that the appellant on the relevant day was present in the house at Kestopur. The evidence of P.W.- 5 Smt. Anju Roy ought to have been considered although she was declared hostile witness by the prosecution.