The evidence did not support a wrongful confinement conviction under S.365 IPC, as essential elements of secret confinement were not proven.

1. By means of this criminal revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura in case number Criminal Appeal 01 of 2017 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.03.2017 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura in case number GR 373 of 2012 sentencing each of the petitioners to RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for committing offence punishable under S.365 read with S.34 IPC with default stipulation and RI for 1 (one) year for committing offence punishable under S.324 read with S.34 IPC directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that at around 4 O'clock in the afternoon on 28.07.2012, the petitioners who are father and sons, attacked Sri Narayan Chandra Baidya, a 73 years' old man in their neighbourhood when he was working in a Khas land in his possession and assaulted him. Thereafter, they fastened him with a napkin and started dragging him. On the way, the victim started screaming. Some people in the neighbourhood heard his screams and started coming to his rescue. The petitioners took away the victim to their house and tied him there. Sri Sujit Baidya, the first informant son of the victim, having come to know about the occurrence immediately informed police and rescued his injured father with police assistance. Then he filed a written FIR with the Officer in Charge of Jatrapur police station.

3. Based on his FIR, Jatrapur P.S. case No. 65 of 2012 under S.365 and S.324 read with S.34 IPC was registered against the petitioners and investigation was taken up.

4. Sri Samir Debbarma, Sub Inspector of police of Jatrapur police station carried out the whole investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet No. 53 of 2012 against the 3 (three) petitioners for committing offence punishable under S.365 and S.324 read with S.34, IPC.

5. The trial court framed charges of offence punishable under S.365 and S.324, IPC against the petitioners. During trial, prosecution examined 5 (five) witnesses including the victim and his first informant son and introduced 2 (two) exhibits including the injury report of the victim. After the recording of the prosecution evidence was over, each of the petitioners were separately examined under S.313, Cr.P.C. They simply denied the charges and claimed that the charges were foisted on them. They declined to examine any witness on their defence.

6. The learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence, held the petitioners guilty and convicted and sentenced each of them to RI for 2 (two) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for committing offence punishable under S.365 read with S.34 IPC with default stipulation and RI for 1 (one) year for committing offence punishable under S.324 read with S.34 IPC directing that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonam - ura, in appeal, affirmed the said conviction and sentence of the petitioners. Hence, this criminal revision petition.

7. I have heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioners who has pointed out to some flaws in the prosecution case. I have also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P who has supported the concurrent findings of the courts below and urged for maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioners.

8. To reiterate the facts, according to PW - 3 Sri Narayan Chandra Baidya who is the victim, the 3(three) petitioners together attacked him at about 4 O'clock in the afternoon and started assaulting him with fist and blows when he had gone to his land at Rajendra Tilla nearby his hom