Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manash Ranjan Pathak, Manish Choudhury, JJ.
Karuna Deka S/o Late Jitram Deka – Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam, Through the Public Prosecutor, Gauhati High Court and ors. – Respondents
Crl.A. 261 of 2014
Decided On : 26-06-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. G K Thakuria
For the Respondent: Mr. R Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to produce the best evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, and the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Code of Criminal Procedure - 364A IPC - [364A] - The judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 226(K)/2012, arising out of G.R. Case No. 1794/1999, corresponding to Latasil Police Station Case No. 43/1999 convicted the accused-appellant under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. However, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charge under Section 364A/34, IPC against the other 2 (two) accused persons, Amal Haloi and Umesh Medhi and therefore, they were acquitted. The accused Karuna Deka has preferred the instant appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant, Shri Karuna Deka, was convicted under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month. The prosecution case involved the kidnapping of a 2½-year-old boy for ransom, and the accused-appellant was found with the kidnapped boy during a police operation to rescue the child. The accused-appellant denied the prosecution's case and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant committed the offence under Section 364A, IPC. The court noted several lapses in the investigation, including hearsay evidence, lack of corroboration, and failure to produce the best evidence. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the offence under Section 364A IPC.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the sufficiency of evidence to prove the accused-appellant's guilt under Section 364A IPC, the reliability of hearsay evidence, and the failure to produce the best evidence by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, the absence of first-hand witness accounts, and the failure to produce essential evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused-appellant.
Final Decision: The court set aside and quashed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2014 and acquitted the accused-appellant of the offence under Section 364A IPC. The appellant, Shri Karuna Deka, was directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Manish Choudhury, J.
The instant appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short) is preferred by the accused-appellant Shri Karuna Deka against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 226(K)/2012, arising out of G.R. Case No. 1794/1999, corresponding to Latasil Police Station Case No. 43/1999, whereby he has been convicted under section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, in short) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 (one) month.
2. A narration of the prosecution case, in brief, is necessary before proceeding further. It was on 04.04.1999, one Plaban Das, son of Shri Narayan Das, resident of G.N.B. Road, Ambari, Guwahati lodged a First Information Report (FIR, in short) before the Officer In-Charge of Latasil Police Station, Guwahati stating, inter alia, that on 04.04.1999 at about 7-30 a.m., his servant, Karuna Kanta Deka i.e. accused-appellant had taken his son, Master Sona, aged about 2½ years, to the road near AGP Office, Ambari for usual morning round. The informant mentioned that at about 8-30 a.m., someone telephoned him informing that his son was with them and they had also kept the accused-appellant blind folded by tying his hands and feet. But till the time of lodging of the FIR both the servant i.e. the accused-appellant and his son had not returned and could not be traced. The said FIR was stated to have been received at the Police Station at about 2-45 pm on 04.04.1999.
3. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Latasil Police Station registered a case being Latasil Police Station Case No. 43/1999 under section 363, IPC and the Officer In-Charge, Latasil Police Station himself took up the investigation of the case. A corresponding G.R. case being G.R. Case No. 1794/1999 was also registered.
4. It transpires that during the course of investigation, the police had found the kidnapped boy from a locality of Sarthebari and the boy was rescued on 06.04.1999. During the operation carried out by the police personnel to rescue the boy, the accused-appellant was found with the kidnapped boy and on 06.04.1999 police apprehended him along with one Umesh Medhi. In the course of investigation of the case, the police also found the involvement of 3 (three) other persons, namely, Amal Haloi, Jagannath Talukdar and Ranjit Baishya and they were arrested in the case. But later on, they were released on bail. The Investigating Officer (I.O., in short) of the case also got the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation and finding prima facie materials against the accused persons, the concerned I.O. submitted the charge-sheet in said Latasil Police Station Case No. 43/1999 under section 173 Cr.P.C. on 28.02.2001 vide No. 07/2001 against 5 (five) of the accused persons, namely, (i) Umesh Medhi, (ii) Amal Haloi, (iii) Jagannath Talukdar, (iv) Ranjit Baishya and (v) Karuna Deka, the accused-appellant under section 363/364A IPC.
5. On appearance of the 3 (three) accused persons viz. (i) the present accused appellant, (ii) Amal Haloi and (iii) Umesh Medhi before the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati on 24.04.2012, the copies under Sections 207, Cr.P.C. were furnished to them. As the offence under Section 364A, IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the said Magistrate by order dated 24.04.2012 passed under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the concerned G.R. Case No. 1794/1999 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and also transmitted its record. The other two accused persons, namely, Jagannath Talukdar and Ranjit Baishya were declared as proclaimed offenders in the case as they absconded and were not found inspite of orders of Procla
