The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence in criminal trials to be reliable, coherent, and established beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of 'preponderance of probabilities' and the need for authenticity and coherence in evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sugato Majumdar, J. - The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22/09/2011 and order of sentence dated 23/09/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar in Sessions Trial No. 8 (5) 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 97/2009, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The de-facto complainant Pradip Sarkar lodged a written complaint on 07/12/2007 in Tufangunj Police Station alleging kidnapping of his minor son Parthib Sarkar alias Palas Sarkar by the appellant. It was alleged in the written complaint that on 06/12/2007 at about 01:30 hours at night his wife suddenly woke up from sleep and found her four years son Parthib alias Palas Sarkar was missing from the bed and doors of the room was open. In spite of thorough searching the boy could not be found out that night. The de-facto complainant lodged ejahar in Tufangunj Police Station reporting the missing of his son. Police authorities began investigation and came to know from a source the whereabouts of the boy and rescued him from one Baneswar Burman with help of one of his relatives. It also came to knowledge that the appellant along with one Fazar Ali and Barek Seikh kidnapped the boy for ransom. The written complaint was received by Tufangunj Police Station on 07/12/2007 at 18:05 hours. On the basis of the said written complaint Tufangunj Police Station Case No. 110/07 dated 07/12/2007 under sections 363/364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated.

3. In course of investigation the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map, examined witnesses and did all other things necessary and incidental to such investigation. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed under sections 363/364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused persons. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and then the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court, Sadar, Cooch Behar for trial and disposal.

4. Charges were framed against the accused persons including the appellant under sections 363/364/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial began.

5. In course of trial seventeen witnesses were examined and various documents were adduced in evidence. The accused persons were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Defense of the accused persons was false implication. The appellant stated in course of examination that he demanded 'much wages' for which he was implicated in the instant prosecution.

6. The trial court, in terms of the impugned judgment acquitted the accused Barek Sk. And Fazar Ali but convicted the appellant and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which a further imprisonment of one month under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court also sentenced the appellant with rigorous imprisonment of same terms and same fine under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

7. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the instant appeal is preferred.

8. Mr. Mondal, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that evidence in this case is rather vague and contradictory. P.W. 9 Rahul Amin who was allegedly approached by the appellant in night with the boy for shelter and whose statement was recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to that effect, stated in examination-in-chief that no person ever visited his house with any child. He further stated in examination-in-chief that he signed recorded statements. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. In course of cross-examination by the prosecution he stated that on 06/12/2007 at about 02:30/3:00 A.M. a young boy came to his ho