Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Sujit Sarkar, Son of Kanai Sarkar & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL. A. 08, 09 of 2013
Decided On : 30-05-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Ghosh, Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful establishment of the charge of kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conviction of the appellants under Section 366A of the IPC.
Headnote:
Kidnapping - Criminal Law - IPC Section 366A, Section 34, Section 342 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of kidnapping a minor girl and the subsequent conviction of the appellants under Section 366A of the IPC. The court analyzes the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense's arguments, ultimately upholding the conviction and modifying the sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the kidnapping of a minor girl from her school by the appellants. The prosecution successfully established the age of the victim and the involvement of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of kidnapping the minor girl and upheld the conviction, modifying the sentence considering the age of the appellants and their lack of criminal antecedent.
Issues: The key issues examined by the court include the age of the victim, whether she was kidnapped by the appellants, and the establishment of the appellants' involvement in the offense of kidnapping.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution successfully established the charge of kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt, and the so-called incongruity in the evidence was deemed insignificant and immaterial for rebutting the role of the accused persons.
Final Decision: The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000 each, and in default of payment of the fine, they were to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appeal was partly allowed to the extent indicated.
Both the appeals being CRL. A. 08 of 2013 [Sri Sujit Sarkar and 2 others vs. State of Tripura] and CRL. A 09 of 2013 [Sri Prasenjit Das vs. State of Tripura] are combined for disposal by a common judgment since those appeals arose from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2013 delivered in case No. S.T. 29 (WT/K) of 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura Judicial District, Khowai. The said judgment dated 29.04.2013 and the consequential order of sentence therefrom are under challenge in these appeals.
2. The genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the written ejahar filed by one Babulal Sarkar (PW-1) revealing that on 15.09.2011 at about 10.30 a.m. his daughter (name withheld for purpose of withholding the identity) proceeded towards her school namely Teliamura Class XII school, when the appellants herein by applying force took his daughter into a maruti vehicle bearing No. TR-01-T-0603 and started proceeding towards Amlighat, Srinagar under Belonia police station. The complainant received a phone-call informing him that his daughter with some persons had been detained by the local people, but finally he could see his daughter in Belonia police station. On 16.09.2010, the complainant brought his daughter to his house.
3. On the basis of the said written ejahar, Teliamura police station case No. 93 of 2010 under Section 366(A)/34 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, the final report charge sheeting the appellants were submitted by the police. On taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 366 A of the IPC, the charge against the appellants was framed under Section 366 A read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to face the trial.
4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the victim (PW-2), the complainant (PW-1), the mother of the victim (PW-3) and one Assistant Sub Inspector of police namely Bikash Debnath (PW-9) who received the information from the Duty Officer of Belonia police station that along the Indo-Bangladesh Border (ICP) at Muhurighat four boys with one girl had been detained with one vehicle by the ICP staffs. After recording the evidence, both documentary and oral, as led by the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C to have their response in respect of the incriminating materials those surfaced from the prosecution evidence.
5. The trial court having appreciated the evidence, passed the judgment of conviction holding inter alia that it has been clearly established that the accused persons had forcefully taken away the victim and took her to Belonia against her will. It has also been deduced that from the evidence it is clearly evident that the victim was below 16 years of age. Even if it is presumed that the victim consented to go with the accused then also the accused persons would be liable for taking away her without consent of her parents. It has also been categorically observed by the trial court that all the accused persons had forcibly kidnapped the victim and took her to Belonia by means of a maruti vehicle where they were detained and ultimately they were handed over to the police and thus the victim was recovered. So, the prosecution evidence was sufficient enough to prove the offence of kidnapping of a minor girl. Thus, the appellants have been convicted under Section 366 A of the IPC for committing an offence of kidnapping.
6. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants have submitted that the trial court has mechanically appreciated the evidence and left out the incongruous materials as surfaced in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. They have further submitted that such incoherence between the testimonies of PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-
