Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
TINLIANTHANG VAIPHEI AND PRASANTA KUMAR SAIKIA, JJ.
Abdul Kalam @ Gaonburah and Ors. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. Appeal Nos. 121 (J) and 182 of 2008
Decided On: 21.01.2014
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. R.K. Dutta, Advocate, Amicus Curie and Mr. Sidartha Burgohain, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. D. Das, Addl. P.P.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364(A)/302/201/34 – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Sections 202 and 215/221 – Criminal Trial - Kidnapping for ransom, etc – Murder - Knowledge and Intention - Appeal against conviction - Brief are that one Prabhat Singh (aged about fourteen years), son of Prabhu Nath Singh, was a student of English Medium School - In morning, he went to school but he did not return home in time for which his father and other relatives made a search for him but in vain. The matter was reported to the Principal of the School next day in the morning - Held, Court have already found that incident in question took place - Record further reveals that accused got involved in crime in question due to queer turn of events and without his knowledge and intention - Therefore, though on materials on record, case under consideration could have been remanded to trial Court with directions to frame a charge under Section 202 IPC against accused and then proceed with same in accordance with law - Thus, while acquitting accused Fazaluddin of offence under Section 202/109 read with 363 IPC on setting aside conviction/sentence, imposed on him under aforesaid sections of law, conviction of other accused persons namely Abdul Jabbar, Atabur Rahman, Abdul Kalam @Gaon Bura under Section 364(A)/302/201/34 IPC and conviction of accused Jamir Hussain under Section 364(A)/34 IPC are maintained - Trial Court had adequately punished all those convicted accused persons and as such, sentences, imposed on those accused persons, invites no interference - Appeal is partly allowed.
Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2008 passed by the learned Session Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 56/2006 whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Abdul Jabbar, Atabur Rahman and Abdul Kalam @ Gaonbura of offences under Section 364(A)/302/201/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each i.d. R.I. for further 6(six) months for offence u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each i.d., imprisonment for further period of 6(six) months for offence under Section 364(A) IPC and sentenced each of them to R.I. for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d imprisonment for further period of 15 days for offence under Section 201 IPC. By the same judgment and order, the learned Session Judge, Morigaon had also convicted accused Jamir Hussain of offence under Section 364A IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- i.d for R.I. for another 6(six) months for the aforesaid offence.
2. Under the same judgment and order, accused Fazaluddin stood convicted of offence under Section202/109 read with Section 363 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 5(five) years and fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d., imprisonment for another 1 (one) month for offence under Section 109 read with 363 IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for 6 (six) months and a fine of Rs. 500/- i.d., R.I. for another 15 days for offence under Section 202 IPC.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants namely Md. Abdul Kalam @ Goanbura, Md. Jamir Hussain, Md. Abdul Jabbar and Md. Aatbar Rahman preferred those appeals citing several infirmities in the judgment under challenge.
4. Since both the appeals arose from the common judgment, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment
5. We have heard Mr. Sidartha Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 182 of 2008 as well as Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 121 of 2008 and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well.
6. The facts which have emerged during trial and which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal in brief are that one Prabhat Singh (aged about fourteen years), son of Prabhu Nath Singh, was a student of Jyoti Niwas English Medium School, Jagiroad. On 06.06.2002, in the morning, he went to school but he did not return home in time for which his father and other relatives made a search for him but in vain. The matter was reported to the Principal of the School next day in the morning.
7. On being so informed, the Principal made an enquiry where from it was learnt that on 06.06.2002, after the school hours, Prabhat Singh along with other students of Jyoti Niwas English Medium School was waiting at Siva Mandir bus stand, Jagiroad to board bus bound for places including the place where Prabhat lived. Some of his friend also saw the said boy boarding a car and left such place.
8. On 06.06.2002 at about 8:30 p.m.. an unknown person called Prabhu Nath Singh (father of the ill fated boy and informant) through his residential phone and claimed Rs. 5 lakhs as the price for release of his son. Even thereafter, the unknown caller kept him demanding money. In the mean time, the unknown caller again demanded him Rs. 3,00,000/- over phone asking him to come over to Dhupguri Bus syndicate, a place under Dhing police station.
9. The unknown caller warned him not to divulge such episode to anyone including police and directed him to come over to aforesaid place alone. On 09.06.2002, as per the arrangement made by police, he went to Dhupguri, a place under Dhing police station in the district of Nagaon. He was escorted by police in civil dress and all of them proceeded to aforesaid place in a private vehicle.
10. But before they reached Dhupguri, he was dropped down from the vehicle with instruction to proceed
