The court emphasized the importance of evaluating evidence for trustworthiness, considering minor contradictions, and the admissibility of confessional statements and identification parades.

JUDGMENT

Bibhas Ranjan De, J. - Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment an order dated 12.04.2018 and 13.04.2018 pronounced by the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, all three appeals are filed. The Ld. Judge convicted all three appellants for the offence under Section 364A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten (10) months each. Ld. Judge also set of the period of detention undergone by the appellants during investigation and trial under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as culled out from the case of the prosecution, are as under:

On 08.03.2008 at about 3 P.M. to 3.30 P.M, appellant Sahadab Siddiqui @ Aman (hereinafter refer to as appellant no.1) called the victim Sree Ram Buchasia (hereinafter refer to as victim) over telephone requesting him to come to city centre at Salt Lake on the plea of moving around Calcutta with his girlfriend. Initially, victim Sree Ram Buchasia did not agree but later on agreed on request of girlfriend of the appellant no. 1 over phone. At 6.30 P.M. Sree Ram Buchasia reached at City Centre, Salt Lake but appellant No.1 was not found there. Then victim contacted said appellant no. 1 over phone and came to know that due to traffic jam appellant no. 1 stranded near HSBC Bank.

Victim, then, reached at the place near HSBC Bank and found appellant no.1 with one cream color Honda City car but no girlfriend was found. However, victim entered into the car and immediately thereafter two unknown persons entered into the car from two opposite side of the car and pointed fire arm at the victim and asked him not to shout.

Thereafter victim was taken to a deserted place and closed his eyes and mouth with luco plast. All of his belongings were snatched away and tied with a chair. One borqua was put on him. Thereafter, appellant asked the victim to call her wife to bring cash of Rs. 1.5 crore and victim will be released thereafter. Accordingly, victim informed his wife over telephone. Appellant no. 1 left the place and appellant Khalid Khan and Kamran Akhtar (hereinafter referred to as appellant no. 2 & 3 respectively), remained there.

3. On the next day again appellant no. 1 came over there and asked the victim to call his wife again otherwise victim will be killed. Thereafter, appellant no. 1 took the telephone numbers of the wife and brother of the victim.

4. After 1 or 2 days again appellant came over there along with some blank stamp papers and got those papers signed by the victim. After some days appellant no. 1 settled the demand at Rs. 40 lac and on that night victim was put in a vehicle and after one and half hours victim was thrown away from the car near Dum Dum Airport.

5. Then, victim hired a taxi and came to the residence of his brother at Phool Bagan. Victim was admitted in Rameswaram Nursing Home at Ultadanga, on 18.03.2008 and remained there till 20.03.2018.

6. On 10.03.2018 Sarad Kumar Buchasia, brother of the victim, already lodged a written complaint addressed to Special I.G, CID, west Bengal, which was forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Howrah. Then Shibpur Police Station Case No. 83 dated 17.03.2008 was started Mr. Amit Ray, S.I. of Police took up investigation on 18.03.2008 Additional Director General of Police ordered for taking up investigation of this case by the C.I.D. Then on 19.03.2008 this case was endorsed to one Pallav Kanti Ganguly, Sub Inspector attached to Special Operation Group, C.I.D, West Bengal, for investigation.

7. During investigation, Investigation Officer Pallav Kanti Ganguly visited several places including the place alleged to have been used for the purpose of confinement of victim. He seized currency notes and seized the car alleged to have been used for abduction. He recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On 16.06.2008 after completion of investigation he submitted charge s