VICTOR BARUA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the same judgment and order of conviction dated 03.07.2013 and 04.07.2013 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, (Special), Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No.125 of 2005 convicting Victor Barua "the appellant No.1" under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 and Rahul Barua "the appellant No.2" under Section 201/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000 each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months each.

(2.) The case of the prosecution originated in a written complaint lodged by the complainant Manik Dey (PW-1) that on 16.12.2004 at about 7:30 pm, Raju Dey (hereinafter referred to as the victim), his nephew and the son of his eldest brother Amal Dey had gone out of his home to meet someone. He was riding a motor cycle and carrying his mobile telephone bearing no.9832363606 with him. However, since he did not return home and his family members were unable to trace him they were compelled to lodge a missing diary with the police on 17.12.2004.

(3.) Thereafter, the de-facto complainant had come to learn that the victim had intended to start a business of selling cash cards of Airtel company and for that purpose had also advanced a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant No.1. However, the appellant no.1 was unable to procure the distributorship. Subsequently, the complainant had come to learn from another common friend Rupam Barua that the victim had only been repaid a sum of Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.10,000/-. Since, the victim had repeatedly demanded repayment of the balance money, the appellant No.1 had threatened to kill him. The complainant was further informed by Barun Barua, that on 16.12.2004 at about 6:10 pm, the victim had been asked by Victor Barua to visit him. The victim had left the house carrying with him a Samsung Mobile set bearing IMEI No.352348006810960 and a Reliance sim bearing No.98323- 63606 with him. However, since leaving the home there was no trace of the victim. It was further alleged in the complaint that owing to differences between the victim and the appellant no.1, the appellant no.1 along with his companions had hatched a conspiracy whereby they had conspired to kidnap the victim with the ultimate intention of killing him.