Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Dr. S. Muralidhar, B.P.Routray, JJ.
Goutam Hazira - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA No. 441 of 2012 & CRLA No. 542 of 2012
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Mr. J. Kamila, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J. Katikia, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The main legal point established is the requirement for trustworthy and credible evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Indian Penal Code - Section 364-A/392/34 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, which requires the establishment of kidnapping or abduction for ransom associated with reasonable apprehension of death or hurt. The court highlighted discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including lack of corroboration, contradictory statements, and omissions in the investigation, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The victims were kidnapped from a train, taken to an unknown place, and held for ransom. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the victims and investigating officers. The defense denied the allegations and pointed out discrepancies in the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution's case, including lack of corroboration, contradictory statements, and omissions in the investigation. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, discrepancies in witness statements, and omissions in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of trustworthy and credible evidence, highlighted discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution's case, and concluded that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The appellants were acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Routray, J. - Both the Appellants, Goutam Hajira and Anil Soni have been convicted by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-I), Balasore in Sessions Trial No.117/265 of 2010 for the commission of offences under Section 364-A/392/34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that, the victims Papu @ Abhimanyu Mahuri (P.W.2) and Pintu Pradhan were working in a textile mill at Coimbatore. On 27th May, 2010 they moved from Coimbatore to Balasore by train i.e. the Karamandal Express. They boarded the train at Chennai on 27th May, 2010. They were scheduled to alight at Balasore railway station the next day. But on the way, the victims were kidnapped by the Appellants were robbed and taken away to an unknown place in West Bengal for ransom.
3. In the night of 30th May, 2010 a phone call was received by Gada @ Sunil, the brother of P.W.2 about the kidnapping of P.W.2 and his friend Pintu. The caller demanded a ransom of Rs. 2 lakhs. Sunil in turn informed Balaram (P.W.1), the eldest brother of both PW 2 and Sunil. On the next day Balaram lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.1) which was registered as Balasore GRPS Case No.22 dated 31st May, 2010. P.W.5, the then Sub-Inspector of Police immediately took up investigation of the case and in course of investigation sent a requisition to the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of Dolahat Police Station (WB). P.W.4, another Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Balasore Town P.S. was sent to Dolahat along with one Muralidhar Sethi immediately. When P.W.4 reached Dolahat P.S., he found both the victims had already been rescued. Subsequently, P.W.4 brought both the victims to Balasore and handed them over to P.W.5.
4. On 04.06.2010, P.W.5 went to Dolahat to conduct a raid and arrested both the appellants with the assistance of the Dolahat police. He brought them to Balasore in custody. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted alleging the aforementioned offences.
5. The defence took the plea of complete denial and false implication. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses and marked four exhibits. No material object was admitted into evidence. The defence did not choose to adduce any evidence.
6. Amongst the two offences with which the Appellants have been charged, the principal one is Section 364-A of the I.P.C. For an offence under Section 364-A I.P.C., the ingredients required to be established are that the accused must have kidnapped or abducted any person, kept him in detention and such kidnapping or abduction should have been for ransom associated with reasonable apprehension of death or hurt.
7. In the instant case, only five witnesses have been examined, amongst whom P.W.2 is one of the victims, P.W.1 is the informant and P.W.5 is the investigating officer (IO). The learned trial court is seen to have relied extensively on the evidence of P.W.2 to sustain the conviction. \
8. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the learned trial court committed an error in believing the statement of P.W.2 without any corroboration and without any supporting circumstance. In absence of any test identification parade, the identification of the appellants by P.W.2 in the court for the first time raised reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that his evidence is full of discrepancies. It is submitted that the investigation was perfunctory.
9. P.W.2 is the star witness. According to the prosecution, P.W.2 and his friend Pintu were kidnapped by the Appellants from the train. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that they boarded the train on 27th May, 2010 and reached at Jajpur Station in the early morning (probably next day). Both the Appellants met them in the train after Jajpur station, befriended them and offered them cold drink. After drinking the same, they lost consciousness and when they regained their senses the next day, they found themselves confined in an unknown plac
