The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the explanation of delay in filing the FIR, and the evaluation of contradictory and irreconcilable evidence were the central legal points established in the judgment.

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.

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.

4. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, on 28.12.2004, the police initiated Bhaktinagar P.S. Case No.241/2 under Section 364 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation further sections i.e. Sections 302/201 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code were added. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet being No.50/2005 dated 26.03.2005 was submitted under Section 302/201/375/401 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

5. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and claimed to be innocent but declined to adduce any evidence in defence. At the conclusion of the trial, by his judgment and order, the Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant nos.1 and 2 as aforesaid and acquitted the other persons.

6. Hence, the present appeal.

7. Mr. Sengupta appearing for the appellant No.1 strenuously argued that in convicting the appellant No.1 the Trial Court committed errors both in law and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He submitted that though the victim had gone missing on 16.12.2004, the complaint was lodged only on 28.12.2004. Hence, he submitted that there was an inordinate delay in lodging their complaint. Such delay was highly suspicious and without any explanation whatsoever. He submitted that the entire case of the prosecution was based on inconsistent statements of all the witnesses. He further submitted that the cause of death in the post-mortem report was not disclosed. The medical witnesses who had conducted the post-morte