In criminal law, accomplice testimonies must be corroborated by independent evidence for conviction; mere witness hostility does not invalidate supportive testimony.

JUDGMENT :

SK Medhi, J.

All the four appeals arise from a common judgment and order dated 04.08.2016 passed in Sessions Case No. 227(K)/2006 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Since these appeals were heard together, those are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The appeals have been preferred under Section 374 of the Cr.PC and by the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for under Section 120(B) read with Section 364A of the IPC and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC, 8 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- for conviction under Sections 395 /397 of the IPC, 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- for conviction under Sections 201 /34 of the IPC and RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- for conviction under Sections 365 /34 of the IPC.

2. The allegation involves kidnapping for ransom and causing the death of the one Pratul Chandra Dev.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an Ejahar on 18.03.2004 by Anil Ch. Dev (PW2), brother of the deceased alleging inter alia that on the previous day at about 9 a.m., his elder brother Pratul Chandra Dev (deceased) along with his driver and clerk had left for Bhairavi in his vehicle and in between 11.30 a.m. to 12.00 noon, some Riang militants abducted them and left the vehicle by the side of the road. The case was, accordingly registered as Katlicherra PS Case No. 19/2004. However, as there was no substantial progress made in the investigation, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by an NGO-Assam Enviro-Legal Protection Society for a direction for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter CBI) in the aforesaid case. This Court had passed an order dated 12.04.2005 allowing such CBI investigation and accordingly, the investigation was taken over by the CBI vide RC.3/S/05-Kol. The investigation was, accordingly made leading to laying of the charge sheet. It may be mentioned that so far as the appellant-Jamaluddin @ Budul Mian is concerned, he was not charged in the initial Charge Sheet which was filed on 24.11.2005. However, in the Supplementary Charge Sheet filed, his name was included. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, accordingly framed the charges under Sections 120B, 364A and 302 of the IPC and the trial had commenced. The charges being denied, the trial has started in which, 37 nos. of PWs were examined.

4. PW1 is one Jalal Uddin Mazumdar, who was a member of a political party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and also of the Gaon Panchayat. He deposed that the deceased had returned from London and expressed his desire to join BJP in the year 2000 and hence came in contact with him. He had also contested election as a BJP candidate in 2001 which he lost and thereafter, started bamboo business in Mizoram. PW1 was also associated with the deceased in the said business. On 17.03.2004, the deceased, accompanied by PW1, had gone to Bhairavi. While crossing Ramnathpur, the vehicle was intercepted by two gunmen. Shortly afterward, some more individuals came and surrounded the vehicle, and two youths in a motor cycle were instructed to sit in the vehicle. The vehicle was taken by a kutcha road and after travelling about 3 kilometres, they stopped it. The passengers were forced to alight and were made to move towards the jungle. The deceased had become senseless and after regaining sense was again compelled to move ahead. However, the deceased being unable to pr