JAGANNATH BAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 25.03.2015 and 26.03.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. IV (Nov.) of 2013 arising out of Sessions Case No. 21 (9) of 2013 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code; both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 4.6.2013 at 10.00 a.m., a child aged around 2 years 11 months went missing while he was playing in front of his house. A missing complaint was diarised at the local police station being G.D.E. No. 209 of 2013 dated 4.6.2013. On the next day at around 6.15 a.m., a phone call was received by Jagannath Bal, uncle of the missing boy (appellant in CRA 202 of 2015) on his mobile phone bearing No. 8926235990 from a mobile bearing No. 9093375161 threatening him that six persons had kidnapped the child and they would return him if a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was paid to them. Hearing this news, Balaram Bal, father of the child, P.W.1, lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Nakashipara Police Station Case No. 513 of 2013 dated 5.6.2013 under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. On the next day i.e. 6.6.2013, I.O. Banibrata Dutta, P.W.19, received telephonic information that the dead body of the victim was found at Khidirpur Madhyapara. He diarised the said information and reached the spot. Dead body was found in a white plastic sack tied with a cord lying on the southern side of the vacant land of Mrityunjay Singha Roy of Khidirpur Madhyapara encircled with a brick fence. He held inquest over the body of the deceased and sent the same for post mortem examination. In the course of investigation, P.W.19 arrested one Bappa @ Subhajit Sanyal (juvenile accused) and seized the mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 356853021213220 as well as a SIM card bearing subscriber No. 9093375161. Bappa made a statement in the custody of police disclosing the roles of the appellants in kidnapping the child, secreting him in the residence of Rajesh Hari (appellant in C.R.A.134 of 2016), ultimately handing over the victim to appellant, Jagannath Bal and that the ransom call was made by Din Dayal Sinha @ Singha (appellant in C.R.A.341 of 2015). Similar statements were also made to police by Jagannath Bal who handed over his mobile phone with SIM bearing subscriber No. 8926235990 which was seized under a seizure list and Din Dayal Sinha @ Singha who claimed that he would be able to show the room where they had secreted the victim and thereafter handed him over to Jagannath Bal. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and one Bappa @ Subhajit Sanyal, Raghunath Das and Param Hari. Cases of Bappa, Raghunath and Param Hari were segregated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial as they were juveniles in conflict with law. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against them under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial though prosecution examined 23 witnesses, most of the witnesses including P.W.1, father of the deceased child turned hostile. However, the trial court on an analysis of evidence on record came to a finding of guilt against the appellants by the impugned judgment and order, as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sreyashee Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant Jagannath Bal (in C.R.A.202 of 2015) argued there is no legally admissible evidence implicating his client in the alleged crime. None of the witnesses saw his client kidnap the child and complicity of his client appears to have transpired from the statements of the co-accused persons before a police officer which are inadmissible in evidence in the light of Section 25/26 of the Evidence Act. Merely because he received the ransom call from unknown persons cannot be a ground to implicate him in the conspiracy of kidnapping the child and thereafter murdering him. He also argued none of the witnesses claimed that they had identified the dead body of the missing child to the I.O. (P.W. 19).