BIDHU DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality of the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura under Section 384 I. P. C. In his judgment dated 31. 07. 2005 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 153 (WT/a)/2000, is under challenge in this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. D. Choudhury, the Learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. C. Debnath, the Learned Public Prosecutor in charge.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 15. 12. 1998 in the evening, Sadhan Das aged about 25 years, Son of the informant of Jagaharimura under West Agartala Police Station had gone out to attend some invitation but did not return during the night time. When he did not return in the night, the informant and his relative searched for him but could not trace him out. On 16. 12. 1998, his scooter was found abandoned at South Anandanagar with a leaf-let indicating that some extremists had abducted him for ransom. Takarjala Police Station collected the scooter and took it to the police station. On learning that the victim was abducted by extremists, the informant with his sons-in-law Ranjan Das went to East Agartala Police Station and lodged a written FIR, which was subsequently registered as Takarjala P. S. Case No. 58 of 1998 under Section 364 (A) I. P. C. , which prompted the investigation of the case. In the meantime, the informant received a number of letters from the extremists group called ATBYF, instructed him to pay ransom for the release of missing person to the order of Rs. 10,00,000/- and asked him for negotiation. As per the instruction contained in the letter of the extremists, the informant along with his two sons-in-law met the appellant at Mandai in his shop and discussed with him about the ransom amount. The informant expressed his inability to make the payment as demanded, but after negotiation, it was agreed that the informant would pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellant, for the release of his son. The informant along with his two sons-in-law i. e. , P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 accordingly met the appellant from time to time and on one spell paid Rs. 90,000/- and on the second spell paid Rs. 10,000/-, but no release was made even after this payment. The informant thereafter met the appellant again, who told him that unless a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid, his son would not be released whereupon the informant with P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 and another relative somehow managed to get Rs. 1,00,000/- which was subsequently paid to the appellant, who in turn, assured them that the victim would be released at Bagma near Bagma Hospital and instructed them to wait there. P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 accordingly proceeded to Bagma and waited there, but the victim was not released. When the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as ransom did not result in the release of the victim by the extremists from their caprivity, they again met the informant, who, however, threatened them with dire consequences if they made any attempt to meet him again at Mandai. The informant and his relative thereupon dropped the idea of meeting with the appellant. In the course of the investigation, the police seized the letters, which the informant received from the extremists by preparing a seizure list. After the investigation, the police charge sheeted the appellant and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 364 (A) and 109 I. P. C. The case was subsequently committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, who endorsed it to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 3), West Tripura for trial. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, having found a prima facie case, framed charge against the appellant and other accused persons under Section 364 (A) IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial thereafter commenced before the Learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the course of the trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant besides exhibiting a number of documents. At the conclusion of the trial the Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence charged, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and at the same time directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the informant in terms of Section 357 (3) Cr. P. C.