The confessional statement of an accused must be recorded in accordance with law and must be voluntary, true, and trustworthy. A confessional statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence against a co-accused.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The instant four appeals are taken up for hearing together since these four appeals arise out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Accordingly, we also propose to dispose of the instant four appeals by passing a common judgment since identical questions of facts and of law are involved in these four appeals. In these four appeals the judgment of conviction dated 24.09.2008 and two separate orders of sentence dated 26.09.2008 and 18.11.2008 as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Purba Mednipur at Tamluk in S.T case no.108(3) of 2004 arising out of GR case no.649 of 1998 in connection with Bhagwanpore P.S Case no.49 of 1998 dated 21.09.1998 has been impugned. By the impugned judgment learned trial court found the four charged accused persons guilty of the offence under Sections 302/34 and Sections 302/120B IPC and thus all the four accused persons are sentenced to suffer R.I for life each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each i.d to suffer R.I for another one year each for the offence committed by them under Sections 302/34 IPC. Learned trial court has however not passed any separate order of sentence as against the four convicts for the offence committed by them under Sections 302/120B IPC. The aforesaid convicts thus felt aggrieved and preferred the captioned mentioned appeals.

2. For effective disposal of the instant four appeals the facts leading to the initiation of the aforesaid trial is required to be dealt with in a nutshell.

3. One Smt. Kanak Pal, wife of Sudhanshu Sekhar Pal of village Banudia, Bhagwanpore, District Mednipur lodged a written complaint dated 21.09.1998 with the Officer-in-charge, Bhagwanpore P.S stating inter alia, that on 20.09.1998 at about 6/6:30 p.m his son Sankar Prasad Pal went to the main road near to her house and even after lapse of several hours thereafter, he did not return. Vigorous search for the missing person was made and at that time two married women of the locality found an envelope in front of the house of the informant and on opening and reading the letter in the said envelope, the informant came to learn that his said son had been kidnapped and the miscreants demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/-towards ransom. On the basis of such written complaint Bhagwanpore P.S Case no. 49 of 1998 dated 21.09.1998 under Sections 365/347/386/34 IPC was started. Investigation was taken up and on completion of the same charge sheet was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/386/120B against all the four accused persons.

4. Trial court record reveals that the present appellants were explained of the charges under Sections 364/302/386/201/34/120B IPC against them which they denied and claimed to undergo trial. The prosecution before the learned trial court examined 24 witnesses in all and they have exhibited various documents. On behalf of the accused persons however, no evidence was adduced. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answers as given by the said four accused persons in their respective examinations under Section 313 Cr.P.C it reveals that the defence case is based on clear denial and false implication.

5. For the sake of brevity the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court can be categorized in the following manner:-