Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 36

IN THE COURT OF ASSTT.

SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANAGHAT, NADIA.
Present : Smt. Ratna Biswas,
Asstt. Sessions Judge, Ranaghat, Nadia.
Ref : Sessions Case No. 03 (03) 2013.
Sessions Trial No. 07 (04) 2013.
State of West Bengal

- Prosecution

-Versus
1) Amar Biswas.
2) Babu Ram Naskar.
3) Gobinda Biswas

- Accused

Charge U/S 363/368/364(A)/34 of Indian Penal Code


Judgement delivered on :

03.06.2014.

J U D G E M E N T
This is a case under section 363/368/364(A)/34 of I.P.C against
accused 1) Amar Biswas, 2) Babu Ram Naskar & 3) Gobinda Biswas.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 19.03.2012 one Suprova
Biswas lodged a written complaint before the O/C Gangnapur PS, to the
effect that on 18.03.2012 at 12 noon her husband on receiving a call from
Amar Biswas over his cell phone went out of the house. Around 01.00 O'
Clock in the night her husband called up on her daughter's mobile number
8945866950 and told her that he has been trapped by Amar Biswas and
they were threatening to kill him if they do not give Rs. 5,00,000/That on 19.03.2012 the said persons called on her brother-in-law
Kanak Biswas's phone number 9433456735 from a phone having number
8420689336 and threatened him to give the Rs. 5,00,000/- within two /
three hours and delivered the money at Jelepara in Bagnan.

On the basis of the said written complaint, Gangnapur PS Case No. 46/12,
dated 19.03.2012 under section 363/368/364(A) of I.P.C was

started

against the accused persons. Investigation of the case followed. On


completion of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet under
section 363/368/364(A) I.P.C against the accused persons.
After submission of charge-sheet as the case appeared to be
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the Ld. A.C.J.M. Ranaghat,
committed the case to the Court of the Ld. Sessions Judge, Nadia U/S 209
of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, Ld. Sessions Judge, Nadia transferred the case to
this Court for trial and disposal.
On 22.04.2013 charge was framed against the accused persons
under section 363/368/364(A)/34 of I.P.C. The accused persons pleaded
not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial started.
After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused persons
were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons
pleaded innocence.

-: Points for Determination :1) Are the accused persons guilty of the charge under section
363/368/364(A)/34 of I.P.C?
2) If the accused persons are found guilty, what should be the
quantum of punishment?

-: Decisions with Reasons :In this case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely PW-1
Suprova Biswas, PW-2 Sunita Biswas, PW-3 Kaushik Biswas, PW-4
Santana Mondal, PW-5 Kanak Biswas, PW-6 Kalyan Biswas, PW-7
KamalBiswas, PW-8 Amit Kr. Majumder, A.S.I of Police, PW-9 Jayanta
Bhattacharya & PW-10 Srikanta Dhar, A.S.I of Police.

In this case once counsel examined one witnesses, namely DW-1


Archana Biswas.
Signature of the defacto complainant on the F.I.R was marked as
exhibit 1. The F.I.R was marked as exhibit 1/1. The receiving
endorsement on the written complaint was marked as exhibit 1/ 2. The
signatures of Kamal Biswas on the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C were
marked as exhibit 2 to 2/1. The statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C of Kamal
Biswas was marked as exhibit 2/2. The formal F.I.R was marked as
exhibit 3. The envelope which contained the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C
of Kamal Biswas was marked as exhibit 4. The rough sketch map of the
1st P.O under Gangnapur P.S along with index was marked as exhibit 5
collectively. The rough sketch map of the 2 nd P.O under Bagnan P.S along
with the index was marked as exhibit 6. The seizure list was marked as
exhibit 7. Call details of Kamal Biswas's mobile number 9333550811
which was marked as exhibit 8. The statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C of
accused Gobinda Biswas and Baburam Naskar were marked as exhibit
9 series.
An agreement made on a letter head pad of K.B Enterprise was
marked as exhibit A. Signatures of Kamal Biswas and Suprova Biswas
on a writing on a ten rupees non-judicial stamp paper (xerox copy ) were
marked as exhibit B & B/1.
PW-1 Suprova Biswas, deposed that she had filed a complaint at
Gangnapur PS. That the F.I.R was written by Sunita Biswas as per her
instruction. That after her daughter read over the contents of the complaint
she put her signature on the same. That the incident occurred on
18.03.2012 at around 12.00 noon. That Amar Biswas had called her
husband over her husband's phone at around 12.00 noon. That after her
husband got out of the house her husband was taken away in a vehicle.
That thereafter, her husband was kept confined at Bagnan by Amar
Biswas and two other persons whom she did not know.
That on 18.03.2012 at around 01.00 A.M her husband called her

daughter in her phone saying that Amar Biswas and two other persons
had kept him confined and that they would not leave him unless Rs.
5,00,000/- was given to them and that he was being assaulted.
That she could not tell her daughter's phone number.
That they did not give Rs. 5,00,000/-.
That she could not say what happened after that. That her daughter
knows what happened after that.
That police of Gangnapur P.S recovered her husband from Bagnan.
That she could not tell whether any information came in her 'bhasur's'
mobile or not. That she could not tell the phone number from which the call
was made for Rs. 5,00,000/-.
That she had seen Amar Biswas once.
That after her husband was kidnapped phone came on 18.03.2012
and 19.03.2012, that is on two occasions.
That she had talks with her husband after he was recovered by
police. That her husband was recovered two days after he was taken
away. That her husband had told her that they were assaulting him and
would assault him if money was not given.
During her cross-examination she deposed that her daughter wrote
the F.I.R in English. That after writing the complaint her daughter read over
the contents of the F.I.R in English to her. That at the time of the incident
her husband worked as an agent for sending persons to foreign country.
That her husband and had opened a firm named K.B.Enterprise at
Begopara. That Kamal Biswas was the proprietor of the said agency. That
her husband used to take money from the candidate depending on the
candidate for sending him to foreign country. That the candidates whom
her husband could not send to foreign countries even after taking money

from them used to come to her husband demanding return of their money
or asking him to send them to foreign country.
That she did not know whether her husband used to give any
writing in his official pad that he had received money from the candidate.
That she did not know whether Amar Biswas had given Rs.
4,30,000/- to her husband for four candidates. That Amar Biswas used to
come to her house but she saw him only once. That she did not remember
whether her husband had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Amar Biswas
and for the same any written agreement was entered into or not and
whether she had signed on the agreement as witness or not. That a sheet
of a paper pad was shown to witness and she said that the pad was of
her husband's enterprise. That there is signature of her husband with date
on the same.
That she did not own any phone. That at the time of the incident
also she did not have any phone.
That she did not know her daughter's phone number.
That she could not say in which numbers phone calls were
received.
That after lodging the complaint police came to her house. That
police came to her house twice. That when police had come to her house
she never saw police seize her daughter's mobile.
That she did not know whether three cases one being for rape,
one for cheating and another for assault, are there against her husband or
not. That a case being Gangnapur PS Case No. 59/12 dated 28.03.2012,
is pending against her husband, 'bhasur' and herself and the same was
filed by Amar Biswas's wife Archana Biswas for not returning Rs.
4,30,000/- which they had accepted from them for sending candidates to
foreign countries but did not send candidates to foreign countries .
That after recovering her husband from Bagnan, police kept her

husband at Gangnapur P.S for two days. That she had talks with her
husband after her husband came home after he was sent to court, after
the two days he was kept at Gangnapur PS.
That Amar Biswas had visiting terms to her house as Amar and
others had become candidates for being sent to foreign country. That for
the said reason they knew Amar. That she had never been to Amar's
house.
That she did not know her 'bhasur's' phone number. She denied
that she had filed this case falsely against Amar as they could not return
Rs. 4,30,000/-

lakhs which they had taken from five candidates for

sending them to foreign country, which candidates included Amar, two


persons from Bagnan and another two persons.

PW-2 Sunita Biswas, deposed that the F.I.R was written by her as
per instruction of her mother. That after she wrote the F.I.R she read the
F.I.Rs in English to her mother and explained the contents of the same in
Bengali to her mother and thereafter, her mother had put her signature on
the F.I.R. That the incident occurred on 18.03.2012. That on 18.03.2012 at
around 12.00 noon Amar Biswas called her father in his phone and took
her father with him. That her father did not return home. That at around
01.00 A.M she received a call from her father. That her father told her that
Amar Biswas and two other persons had kept him confined in a house at
Bagnan and that they were demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father and
if her father did not give him the money they would kill him. That next day
they told about the incident to her 'jethu' Kanak Biswas and thereafter,
they went to PS and reported the matter to PS. That thereafter, with help
of police her father was recovered. That her father was recovered on
20.03.2012. That she had talks with her father. That she could not tell the
names of the other two persons. That she heard the name of Amar Biswas
but she did not know him.
During her cross-examination by the defence she deposed that her
father used to send persons to foreign countries. That he stopped the said

business four years before the date of the incident. That since 2008 her
father stopped his business of sending people to foreign countries.
That the firm which her father ran from Begopara was K.B
Enterprise. That the pad (exhibit A) belongs to her father's enterprise
and the signature on the pad is that of her father.
That as her father sent people to foreign countries her father came
to know Amar Biswas. That she could not say whether Amar Biswas used
to come to their house or not due to business purpose with her father,
regarding sending persons to foreign countries.
That police never interrogated her. That this was the first time she
was telling about the incident.
That she did not know whether the people from whom her father
had taken money for sending them to foreign countries but could not send
them, used to come to her father on demand of returning their money.
That she did not know whether any cases are pending against her
father or not.
That police never seized any mobile from her. That she had written
in the complaint that her father had told her over phone that if the
demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- was not given the accused would kill him.
That her father was recovered on 20.03.2012 at night. That she did
not go to the police station that day.
She denied that on 18.03.2013 she was not in the house. That at
the time of the incident she was a student of B.A 3 rd year of Scottish
Church College. That she used to study in the college from hostel. That
she used to stay in hostel and also in her Mashi's house during her stay at
Kolkata.
That she did not know whether her father had taken Rs. 4,30,000/from Amar Biswas for sending persons to foreign countries and the said

money was received by way of written documents.

PW-3 Kaushik Biswas, deposed that the incident took place on 18 th


March 2012 at 12.00 noon. That her father was called over phone by one
person whose surname was Biswas. That his name he did not remember.
That his mother had told him about the said phone call. That at 01.00 A.M
in the night his father rang up her sister Sunita Biswas in her phone and
told her that the person who had called him by phone and two other
persons had kept him confined at Bagnan and was demanding Rs.
5,00,000/- or else they would kill him. That he could not say the names of
those persons. That he did not know them.
During his cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he
had talk with his sister on 18th March at 01.00 A.M in the night (i.e. on 19 th).
That police never interrogated him about this case. That this was the first
time that he was telling about the incident.

PW-4 Santana Mondal, deposed that the incident occurred on 18 th


March, of the previous year.
On being questioned by the Ld. A.P.P as to what had happened.
She replied that kidnapping wad done.
On being asked by the prosecution who had kidnapped . She
replied that she did not know who had kidnapped.
On being asked by Ld. A.P.P as to who was kidnapped and from
where . She answer that Kamal Biswas was kidnapped from the highway
near her house.
That she did not know where Kamal Biswas was kept after being
kidnapped. That police recovered Kamal Biswas. That she did not hear
anything else. That she did not remember who kidnapped Kamal Biswas,
then said that she heard that Amar Biswas had kidnapped him. That she
did not know Amar Biswas.

This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.


During her cross-examination by the prosecution she deposed that
she had told police that Amar Biswas of Dhantala and two other persons
had kidnapped Kamal Biswas and kept him confined at Howrah in Bagnan
and was demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for his release.
During her cross-examination by the defence she deposed that she
did not tell the police as to from whom she heard about the kidnapping
incident. That she heard about the kidnapping on the night of 19 th March.
That she did not state before the I/O that on 18 th March 2012 Amar Biswas
of Dhantala and two other persons had wrongfully confined Kamal Biswas
at Howrah in Bagnan and was demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for his release.
That it was the first time she was telling about the incident as stated
above. That she never told about the incident to anyone before this date.
That except for what she heard she did not have any personal knowledge
about the incident.

PW-5 Kanak Biswas, deposed that the incident occurred on 18 th


March 2012 at around 12.00 noon / 01.00 P.M. That Amar Biswas called
his brother through phone. That on receiving his phone his brother went
out of the house. That thereafter his brother was caught from the road and
taken away. That his brother was taken away from Dayabari Mission gate.
That on the next day i.e. 19th his brother's wife lodged complaint at
Gangnapur PS.
That he came to know about the incident from his brother who rang
him up on his phone on 19 th morning from Bagnan. That his phone number
is 9433456735.
That his brother rang him up and asked him not to go for work. That
they were demanding Rs. 5,00,000/-. That he arrange for the money and
get him released . That he told his brother from where he would get Rs.

5,00,000/- at that moment. That his brother was not allowed to talk to
much. That his brother also told him that if the money was not given they
would kill him.
That his brother was recovered from Bagnan by police of
Gangnapur PS. That he was present with his brother at the time of
recovery of his brother.
That police caught Baburam Naskar and Gobinda Biswas also who
had kept him confined. That as Amar Biswas had fled away police could
not catch him.
That his brother was also beaten up there. That he did not know
Amar Biswas.
During his cross-examination by the defence he denied that his
brother's house is 100 houses from his house. That his house is besides
his brother's house. That his brother Kamal Biswas was unemployed at
the time of the incident. That at the time of the incident his brother did not
run agency of sending persons to foreign countries. That at the time of the
incident his brother had a firm named K.B enterprise. That the firm was
associated with sending persons to foreign countries. That his brother had
some agents who used to collect candidates for sending to foreign
countries after taking money. That he did not know whether at times his
brother was not able to send some of the choosen candidates to foreign
countries.
That police asked him about the incident on 19 th when he went to
the PS in the morning. That he told police about the entire incident.
That after the 19th police never interrogated him about the incident.
That this was the first time he has stated the facts as told to him before the
court. That he never told the facts anywhere else before this day.
That this was the first time he has stated about his phone number.
That police never seized the said mobile from him.

That he saw Baburam Naskar and Gobinda Naskar for the first time
after they were caught by police on 19th.
That police recovered his brother on 20th, in the night.
That he did not know whether his brother had taken Rs. 4,30,000/from Amar Biswas, for sending five candidates to foreign country or not.
He denied that as his brother was refusing to return the Rs. 4,30,000/- that
he had accepted from Amar Biswas for sending candidates to foreign
countries, so they have lodged this case falsely.
That he had told police on 19 th morning, that on 19th his brother had
rung him up on his mobile. That he had told police that his brother rang
him up and told him not to go for work, instead arrange for the money and
rescue him. That he had also told police that he would not be able to
arrange for such sum of money in such short time.
That he went in a Tata Sumo with police to Bagnan. That two police
officers and two constable had gone with him. That he set out for Bagnan
from Gangnapur PS at 09.30 A.M / 10.00 A.M. That they first went to
Uluberia PS. From Uluberia PS they went to Bagnan at 03.00 P.M / 03.30
P.M. That police of Uluberia PS showed them the place where his brother
was kept. That they reached Bagnan at 03.00 P.M and after all formalities,
there they started from Bagnan at 06.00 P.M.
That he did not tell police during investigation that as Amar Biswas
fled away so he could not be apprehended.
That he did not tell police that his brother used to work as an agent
of sending persons to foreign countries along with Amar Biswas of
Dhantala, since the last two years.
That he had told police that on 19 th his brother rang him up in the
morning and told him about the incident.
That he has come to court on all the days evidence is going on.
That he was present on the days his 'boudi,' nephew and niece gave

evidence and returned home along with them. That he had discussion with
them about the evidences.

PW-6 Kalyan Biswas, deposed that the incident occurred on


18.03.2012 in the afternoon at around 01.30 P.M / 02.00 P.M. That he was
ill. That he heard that his brother was called over phone and taken away
by Amar Biswas. That later he came to learn that his brother was taken
away to Bagnan. That he was not able to know to much about the incident.
That he heard that Amar Biswas demanded Rs. 5,00,000/-.
That police recovered his brother from Bagnan. That he did not
know anything else.
That he did not know Amar Biswas.
That he met Kamal Biswas later on. That they live in the same
house. That he lived on the top floor and his brother Kamal on the ground
floor. That he did not have any talk with his brother.
During his cross-examination by the defence he deposed that
except for what he heard he did not have any personal knowledge about
the incident. That whatever was told by him in court has been told by him
for the first time.

PW-7 Kamal Biswas, deposed that the incident took place of


18.03.2012 at 12.00 noon. That he was called over by phone by Amar
Biswas. That Amar Biswas had asked him to come to mission gate.
That Amar Biswas used to do business with him. That the business
was of sending persons to foreign country. That they did business
together. That at present he did not do that business. That he had left that
business four years ago.
That he went walking. That they were waiting with a white coloured

Maruti van near the electric power house. That they asked him to get up
on the vehicle. That he got up in the vehicle. That they started the vehicle
and went towards Kolkata. That they thereafter told him that
'

That he asked for water from them. That Amar Biswas gave him
water. That after some time he became unconscious. That thereafter, he
did not know anything.
That Gobinda Naskar and Amar was in the car. That there were four
persons in the car including the driver.
That he regained consciousness around 01.00 A.M in the night.
That then Amar Biswas told him to ring up at his house and ask for Rs.
5,00,000/- otherwise he would be killed.
That he rang up in his 'mejda's' number. That he rang up from his
own phone. That his phone no. is 9333550811 and his 'mejda's no. is
9433456735.
That his 'mejda' told him to give him some time and that he would
see into the matter. That he told his 'mejda' to do something fast as he was
being assaulted. That his 'mejda' thereafter contacted S.D.P.O and
Gangnapur PS. Thereafter his 'mejda' on 20 th along with force of
Gagnapur P.S rescued him from Bagnan.
That Amar Biswas fled away from the spot. That two persons
namely Gobinda and Naskar were caught. That they were all brought to
Gangnapur PS. That the next day he gave statement before Magistrate.
That he told the magistrate whatever he told before the court today.
That he was recovered by police two days later.
During his cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he
did not know whether a case of rape was pending against him or not.

He denied that he had taken Rs. 4,30,000/- from Amar Biswas on


15.03.2010 for giving job to four persons. That he had an enterprise
named K.B enterprise, on 30.03.2009.
That he did not know whether Amar Biswas's wife Archana Biswas
had filed a case against him, his 'mejda' Kanak Biswas and his wife
Suprova Biswas being Gangnapur PS Case No. 59/2012. That they were
on bail in that case and that the case was pending for trial.
That he had taken Rs. 4,30,000/- on loan from Amar Biswas. That
he had given an undertaking that he would pay back the money to him and
returned the money back accordingly.
That the place near Begopara Church is a very busy place. That
many vehicles pass through that place through out and many people were
found at that place at all times.
That he told the magistrate at the time of giving statement U/S 164
of Cr.P.C that he had told his 'mejda' that they were demanding Rs.
5,00,000/- from him. That he had also told the magistrate that four persons
were in the car and the colour of the car was white.
That he had told phone numbers to police during interrogation and
also to the magistrate during his statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C.
That he did not remember whether he had told the magistrate
during his statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C that his 'mejda' told him give him time
or that his 'mejda' contacted S.D.P.O and Gangnapur PS and thereafter
recovered him.
That he had talks with his daughter and 'mejda' on the night of
18.03.2012 / 19.03.2012. That he had told the magistrate that he had talks
with his daughter on 18.03.2012 / 19.03.2012.
That police recovered him on 20th at around 02.30 P.M / 03.00 P.M
in the afternoon.

That the accused and he was brought together in the same vehicle.
That they were brought in a private car, which was arranged by his
brother. That two police officers, two constables and his brother were also
in that car.
That he told the magistrate during his statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C
that Amar Biswas had fled away. That he told the magistrate that he
became unconscious after drinking water and regained consciousness at
01.00 A.M in the night then says he did not remember whether he had said
so before the magistrate or not.
Except for having talks with his brother at 01.00 A.M on that day, he
did not have any talks with any member of his family after that.
That he had told the magistrate that Amar Biswas had brought a
white coloured Maruti van near power house and called him.
That when any person told him that he / she had a candidate and
called him, he used to go there and see the papers and after having talks
he would return back giving him / her the address of his office.
That he did not know Babu Ram and Gobinda before. That he
never met them before.
He denied that on 18.03.2012 he had called Baburam over phone
and told him to give him some candidates and thereafter , along with , his
kept Monika Lahiri ,he had gone to Baburam's house.
That he denied that Amar Biswas was not present at the P.O or that
he does not know anything about the incident. He denied that he did
business of sending people to foreign countries with Baburam Naskar
before.
That the P.P who has been appointed in this case, looks after his
cases.
That his daughter and wife stays in the same house. That they have

a joint family.
That he had discussion with his wife, daughter and brother about
this case. That he was brought to Gangnapur PS on 20 th in the afternoon.
That he was sent to court on 21st.

PW-8 Amit Kr. Majumder, A.S.I of Police, deposed that on 19.03.2012


he received a complaint from one Suprova Biswas. That he thereafter
started Gangnapur PS Case No. 46/12, dated 19.03.2012 U/S
363/368/364(A) of I.P.C.
During his cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he
has no personal knowledge about this case except for filing up the formal
F.I.R.

PW-9 Jayanta Bhattacharya, deposed that on 22.03.2013 he recorded


statement of Kamal Biswas as per direction of Ld. A.C.J.M Ranaghat,
dated 21.03.2013. That he wrote down whatever was stated by Kamal
Biswas. That he also gave certificate accordingly. That the statement has
been recorded in his own handwriting and bears his signature and official
seal.
His cross-examination was declined by the defence.

PW-10 Srikanta Dhar, A.S.I of Police, deposed that on 19.03.2012


he was endorsed to investigate Gangnapur PS Case No. 46/12, dated
19.03.2012 U/S 363/368/364A of I.P.C by the then O/C. That after taking
up investigation he visited the P.O and prepared rough rough sketch map
of P.O alongwith index. That he examined available witnesses and
recorded their statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C. That he got the call details of

Kamal's mobile number. That from the call details he came to learn that
Kamal was somewhere at Uluberia. That they went to Uluberia PS. That
from Uluberia PS they came to learn that the phone came from a place
under Bagnan PS. Kamal's elder brother was with him then. That the
accused persons called from Kamal's phone and asked Kamal's brother
to come with the due money to such and such place and give them the
money. That the amount was Rs. 1,00,000/-. That the amount was not
stated in that day's C.D.
That the call details were collected from their PS computer. That
Kamal Biswas's phone number is 933550811.
That he contacted I/C Bagnan over phone as he was short of time.
That I/C Bagnan arranged for force.
That he had gone in civil dress. That the force was kept outside
when he entered the P.O. That the P.O was Bagnan, Chandrapur
Jelepara. The complainant's brother, A.S.I Avijit Banerjee and himself
entered the house. That he had gone as Kamal's brothers' friend.
That after they entered the accused persons asked Kamal's brother
whether he had brought the money. That they also asked Kamal's brother
who they were. That Kamal's brother told the accused that they were his
friends. That Kamal's brother told them that they would give the money but
first Kamal be shown to them. That as they were not showing Kamal he
made a missed-call to the force waiting outside as per instruction. That the
force came and surrounded the accused. That they apprehended both the
persons. That thereafter they arrested Baburam Naskar and Gobinda
Biswas. That there was another person, whom they did not see then. That
the said person had fled away as he had received prior information. That
Amar Biswas had fled away.
That they pressurised the accused. Then they found Kamal from a
room of Baburam Naskar. That they thereafter recovered Kamal.
That he thereafter prepared the rough sketch map of the P.O where
Kamal was kept.

That thereafter along with accused and Kamal they returned to PS.
At P.S he examined the accused and the victim and recorded their
statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C.
That he sent Kamal before the Ld. Court for recording his statement
U/S 164 of Cr.P.C and also forwarded the accused before court with prayer
for seven days police custody. That he had taken the accused on police
custody to arrest the other accused but could not arrest anyone.

During his cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he


never seized any mobile in this case. That before leaving the PS for any
duty G.D entry has to be made. That after returning from duty the duty
performed by him has to be entered in the G.D. That while leaving the PS
a G.D has to be started and after returning from raid whatever was done
and what happened at the raid should be recorded in the G.D. That he
made diary before leaving for Uluberia for raid. That there was no
reflection in his C.D regarding the G.D entry made by him before leaving
for raid. That after returning from the raid he did not make entry in the G.D
as to what event had taken place during the raid. That in G.D everything
that happened or was done by him during raid / investigation was not
required to be reflected. That he did not seize any mobile of the
complainant, witnesses or of the accused. That he did not collect any call
list of the calls which was made as has been stated in his chief, from any
telecom office. That he was endorsed to investigate the case on
19.03.2012 at 16.05 hours.
That he examined Kanak Biswas on 19 th, at 21.35 hours. That he
did not examine Kanak Biswas on any other day thereafter. That he
examined Suprova Biswas at her house on 21.35 hours on 19.03.2012.
That he examined Sunita Biswas at her house on that day.
That the first P.O shown by him is Kanak's house. That he did not
examine the persons whose house he has shown to be located around the

first P.O.
That he went on raid on 20 th. That he left for raid at 03.05 hours.
That A.S.I Avijit Banerjee and force accompanied him. That he did not
mention the name of the force who accompanied him. That the brother-inlaw of the complainant to accompanied him.

That he had made G.D

before leaving for raid but he cannot tell the number of the G.D.
That he did not examine A.S.I Avijit Banerjee or the force on the 20 th
when he left for raid.
That he did not make any query whether the house from where the
accused was recovered was that of Babu Ram Naskar or not. That he also
did not collect any documents in that regard also.
That he did not examine any person around the 2 nd P.O shown by
him. That he did not examine the person who made the G.D entry at
Uluberia P.S. Where he had made requisition for adequate force.
That they reached the P.O at 16.15 hours. That the accused
persons were arrested at 17.45 hours on 20 th.
That he did not take any information about the whereabouts of the
victim after he was recovered.
That there was no mention in the complaint that the complainant's
husband was taken away in a vehicle by Amar Biswas and two other
persons whose name she did not know and had kept her husband
confined at Bagnan. That there was no mention in the complaint that the
complainant's daughter received a phone call from her father. That her
father was kept confined by the accused and until Rs. 5,00,000/- was not
given, they would assault him. That he never took any information about
the business or more done by the victim. That except for examining the
witness at 09.35 P.M on 19th he did not examine them on any other date.
That Satana Mondal's house is besides the house of the victim.
That Santana Mondal (P.W-4) did not tell him that she had heard about the

kidnapping on the night of 19th March.


That Kanak Biswas (PW-5) did not tell him that he came to know
about the incident from his brother who rang him up in his phone on 19 th
morning from Bagnan. That he also did not tell him that Kamal was caught
and taken away from the road. That he also told him that his brother rang
him up and asked him not to go to work. That they were demanding Rs.
5,00,000/- That he arranged for the money and get him release from them.
That Kanak Biswas also did not tell him that his brother was recovered by
police or that police caught Baburam Naskar and Gobinda Biswas also
and had kept Kept confined or that as Amar Biswas had fled away police
could not catch him or that his brother was also beaten up there. That
Kanak Biswas never told him about his phone number during his
examination. That he also did not tell him that his brother had rang him up
on 19th morning. That he did not tell him that Amar Biswas had fled away.
That he recovered victim Kamal Biswas on 20.03.2012 some times
after 17.45 hours. That there is no mention in his C.D regarding the exact
time when he recovered the victim. That Kamal Biswas was recovered
from Chandrapore Jelepara. That Kamal Biswas was sent to court on
21.03.2012. That it was mentioned in the statement made by victim Kamal
Biswas that in the afternoon of 21 st March, police recovered him. That
Kamal Biswas did not give any statement to him that Baburam Naskar and
Gobinda Biswas confined him.
That he did not make any inquire or investigation regarding the
vehicle about which the victim told in which he was taken away or about
the two unknown persons.
That he did not make any sketch map of the P.O from where Kamal
was taken away. That it was mentioned in the statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C
that on 19th and 20th Kamal was kept confined there.
That except for the fact that the victim was called by a telephonic
call by Amar Biswas, names of any other persons was not told by him in
the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C. That the victim Kamal did not tell about
any call made to him to his brother on 19th, during his statement U/S 164

of Cr.P.C.
That in the statement made to him by the victim Kamal Biswas he
had stated that he was recovered by them around evening of 20.03.2012.
DW-1 Archana Biswas, deposed that Kamal Biswas sends persons
to foreign countries. That she knows him because of his said business.
That Kamal Biswas in order to send her husband Amar Biswas to foreign
country had gone to her house. That she knows him for that reason. That
Kamal Biswas had taken money from her husband for sending him to
foreign country. That Kamal Biswas had also told her husband that if her
husband could arrange for more persons for sending them to foreign
country he would pay her husband for making such arrangements. That
her husband had arranged for five persons in total Kamal Biswas had
taken Rs. 4,50,000/- for sending them to foreign country. That she was
present at the time the money was given to Kamal Biswas. That Kamal
Biswas had given a receipt in his office pad for receiving the amount of Rs.
4,50,000/-. That no job was given by Kamal Biswas to her husband or
those persons. That no money was also returned by Kamal Biswas. That
she was present at the time the receipt was given.
That her husband, Gobinda Biswas, Baburam Naskar @ Balaram
Naskar, herself and two other persons namely Ram Biswas and Ashok
Biswas was present at the time of giving the receipt for acceptance of Rs.
4,50,000/-. That Kamal Biswas gave the receipt from his office. That
Kamal Biswas's office was in his own house. That Gobinda Biswas,
Baburam Naskar, Amar Biswas, Ram Biswas and Ashok Biswas were
known to Kamal Biswas. That Kamal Biswas had contact with them and
visited their house. That as Kamal Biswas did not give job nor returned the
money, she had reported the incident to Gangnapur PS. As Gangnapur PS
never took any steps she lodged complaint in the court. That the complaint
was registered as Gangnapur PS Case No. 59/12.
During her cross-examination by the prosecution she deposed that
Kamal Biswas had been to their house in the year 2009, three / four times.
That she could not tell the exact dates of his visits. That she had been to
Kamal Biswas, house a number of times. That she had been to Kamal

Biswas house since 2009 to 2012. That she used to visit his house nearly
every week asking him to return the money. That she also cried in front of
Kamal Biswas's wife and elder brother. That she could not tell the exact
dates of her visits. That she could tell the names of three candidates out of
the five candidates who were arranged by her husband. That the three
candidates were Baburam Naskar, Gobinda Biswas and Amar Biswas (her
husband). That she did not sign as witness when the Rs. 4,50,000/- were
given to Kamal Biswas at his house. That there are no signatures of her
husband, Baburam Naskar, Gobinda Biswas, Ram Biswas and Ashok
Biswas on exhibit A. That exhibit A was written by Kamal Biswas in his
official pad and bears his signature only.
That Gobinda Biswas and Baburam Naskar were arrested on
20.03.2012. That after they were arrested she came to know that her
husband was also implicated in that case.
That on 02.04.2012 she came to court and filed case against Kamal
Biswas, Kanak Biswas and Suprova Biswas. That her husband was not
absconding then. That he was outside on account of his work. She denied
that in order to save her husband, she had filed a false case against
Kamal Biswas, Kanak Biswas and Suprova Biswas and the said case was
filed in consultation with her husband. She denied that Kamal Biswas had
never been to their house. She denied that neither she nor her husband
Amar Biswas nor Baburam Naskar, Gobinda Biswas, Ashok Biswas or
Ram Biswas had ever been to Kamal Biswas's house.

Ld. A.P.P submitted that in this case the F.I.R was a prompt F.I.R.
That the evidence given by PW-1 that is the complainant of this case has
been supported by all the prosecution witnesses, even by PW-4 who is a
neighbour.
That the fact of kidnapping and demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not
only supported by the relatives of the victim but also by the neighbour

(PW-4) that the PW-7 who is the victim of the case has corroborated his
statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C during his evidence. The accused Amar
Biswas was identified by PW-1 (complainant) and PW-7 (victim) to whom
Amar was known. As the case is a case of kidnapping, it was obvious that
Amar and the other accused persons would not be known to the other
witnesses, and not identified them. That from the evidence of DW-1 it was
found that the case that was filed against victim Kamal Biswas for cheating
was filed after this case and was filed to save her husband. That even if
there was a monetary relation between the accused and the victim but that
cannot be justification for kidnapping, a money suit or a case of cheating
could have be filed for the same.
Ld. A.P.P referring to the call details of victim's phone number
9333550811, which was marked 'X' for identification during evidence
submitted that the same was downloaded form the computer cell of the
police station, so should be marked as exhibit. Referring to same he
submitted that on tracing the call details of victim's phone number the
victim was found to be at Bagnan and recovered by the I.O from there. He
further stated that now a days most cases are solved by tracing call details
of mobile phone . Ld. A.P.P further while arguing the case submitted that
the statements made U/S 161 of Cr.P.C were public documents so same
should be considered by the court and prayed that the statement U/S 161
of Cr.P.C made by accused Baburam Naskar and Gobinda Biswas be
marked as exhibits.
Ld. A.P.P referring to

2010 CRI. L.J 1937 said that it was well

settled that first information report need not contain every minute detail
about the occurrence. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is not
necessary that the name of every individual present at the scene of
occurrence is required to be stated in the first information report.
Further referring to 2013 CRI. L.J 3966 Ld. A.P.P submitted that
defects in investigation, unless they cast reasonable doubt on prosecution
case cannot be ground to acquit accused.
Further referring to 2011 CRI. L.J 2765 Ld A.P.P submitted that
evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the victim was

kidnapped and a ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- was demanded. That all the
ingredients of section 364(A) of I.P.C had come out in the case. That
against all the accused the case was proved. Hence, he prayed that the
accused persons be convicted.
Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand submitted that the victim
never say during his statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C as to who had abducted
him. Further in his statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C the victim says that he was
kept confined by the accused on 19 th and 20th and recovered on 21st. Ld.
Counsel further submitted that the accused Amar Biswas was identified by
PW-1 as he was known to her because of business relation between them.
That PW-1 had said that on 18 th and 19th phone call was made. That the
I.O at the time of investigation never seized any mobile or got any call
chart. That the I.O never examined PW-1 after the complaint was lodged
even though there was talked between husband and wife after the victim
of allegedly recovered. That the defacto said that her husband was kept at
the police station for two days after recovery. That PW-1 did not know
what was written in the F.I.R.
He further submitted that in case of kidnapping the victim had to be
taken away against his wish. There was no evidence that the victim was
taken away against his wish or by force. That PW-2 had said that the
victim was recovered on the night of 20.03.2012. The victim was the only
person who could say when he was recovered. The victim say that he was
recovered on 21st. That it was admitted fact that at the time of the incident
PW-2 was not present in her house. The first call regarding kidnapped was
received by her. She was a vital witness but she was not interrogated by
police. So the whole occurrence was cloudy. That PW-3 was not
interrogated by police. PW-4 says she heard about the incident but from
whom she heard about the incident is not said.
That the case was registered on 19 th March 2012 at 04.05 P.M.
That PW-5 says he was interrogated on 19 th March 2012, morning. This
went to show that he was not at all interrogated by the I.O.
That the mobile of PW-2 and PW-5 who is said to have received
calls from the victim after being kidnapped was not seized by the I.O.

That PW-5 said that his brother was recovered on 20 th but says he
saw accused Baburam and Gobinda on 19th.
That all family members resided in the same mess and had
discussion regarding what evidence that was to be given.
That PW-6 who is the brother of the victim and lived in the same
house as that of the victim is found to have no knowledge about the
incident nor was he examined by the I.O.
That PW-5 says that the persons who had kept the victim confined
was arrested on 19th and says that his brother who was a victim of this
case was recovered on 20th. That the kidnapping took place on 18 th , no
story of the incident of 18th came before the court. Thus it was clear that no
incident was kidnapping did actually take place. That PW-7 (victim) had
said during his cross-examination that he was recovered at 02.30 P.M /
03.00 P.M on 20th whereas PW-5 who was amongst the recovering party
said that his brother was recovered on the night of 20 th. That the victim
said he was taken away in a maruti car. No such car was recovered by the
I.O. The apprehending officer A.S.I Avijit Banerjee was not examined. PW10 said that the victim was recovered from Baburam's house but none
from near Baburam's house was examined. None of the members of
Baburam's house was also examined. That the fact of going to a different
district for recovery had to be mentioned in C.D & G.D but there was no
such reflection in either C.D or G.D. That to substantiate recovery there
should be reflection in C.D and G.D. There was no such reflection in either
C.D or G.D. That for getting force from different P.S requisition for force
must be made. The I.O says that he took force from Bagnan PS for
recovering the victim. No such requisition was also produced. That no
investigation was made by the I.O regarding the call made by the accused
Amar Biswas to the victim. That there was no evidence as to where the
victim was on 18.03.2012 i.e. the day of his alleged kidnap.
In conclusion Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecution
had miserably failed to prove his case. That it was clear that there was
business relation between the accused Amar Biswas and the victim Kamal

Biswas and there was also monetary transaction between them. That the
case was filed falsely so that the victim Kamal Biswas is save from paying
the Rs. 4,30,000/- which he had taken from the accused Amar Biswas. He
thus prayed that the accused persons be acquitted.
Before I scan the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to find out
wether the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all
reasonable doubts. I feel that the call details of the victim, Kamal Biswas's
mobile no. 9333550811 which was marked 'X' for identification be marked
as exhibit. Accordingly the same is marked as exhibit 8. That statement
U/S 161 of Cr.P.C of the accused Baburam Naskar and Gobinda Biswas I
feel should also be marked as exhibit and taken into judicial consideration.
Accordingly their statements be marked exhibit 9 series.
The defacto complainant of this case is Suprova Biswas, wife of
victim Kamal Biswas. She I find has deposed as PW-1. PW-1 is found to
deposed that the F.I.R was written by her daughter Sunita Biswas as per
her saying. That after her daughter had read over the contents of the F.I.R
she put her signature on the same. During her cross-examination she is
found to say that she does not understand English. That the F.I.R was
written by her daughter in English. That after writing the F.I.R her daughter
read over the contents of the F.I.R in English to her. This evidence shows
that PW-1 though says that the F.I.R was written as per her instruction by
her daughter, actually does not know what is written in the same.
PW-1 is found to say that on 18.03.2012 at 12.00 noon her husband
on receiving a call from Amar Biswas left his home. That after her husband
got out of the house her husband was taken away in a vehicle. That
thereafter, her husband was kept confined at Bagnan by Amar Biswas and
two other persons whom she did not know. That on 18.03.2012 at around
01.00 A.M her husband called her daughter in her phone saying that Amar
Biswas and two other persons had kept him confined and that they would
not leave him unless Rs. 5,00,000/- was given to them and that he was
being assaulted. From this evidence of PW-1 what I find is that P.W -1 's
husband i.e the victim Kamal Biswas had left home at 12.00 noon after
receiving a call from Amar Biswas on 18.03.2012 and thereafter, did not
return home and that at 01.00 A.M her daughter received a call that her

husband was kept confined by Amar Biswas at Bagnan and that Amar
Biswas was demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for release. It is found from the
evidence on record that there was a strained relation going on between
the victim and Amar Biswas over monetary issue. When PW-1 says that
her husband had left home on receiving a call from Amar Biswas at 12.00
noon and thereafter, did not return home it would have been obvious for
PW-1, who happens to be the wife of the victim to take information about
his whereabouts. Even if for argument sake it is said that PW-1 was not
aware of her husband's relation with Amar Biswas it cannot be that when
her husband does not return home even after 12.00 midnight having left
home at 12.00 noon after receiving a phone call , it cannot be that , she
would not take any information about her husband's whereabouts in
between the period after 12 noon till 1 A.M ,when her daughter receives
call regarding the kidnap . No evidence came before the court as to what
was done by PW-1 between the period after 12.00 noon till her daughter
received the call from her husband at 01.00 A.M in the night and after
01.00 A.M till the time she lodged F.I.R at PS at 04.05 P.M of 19.03.2012.
She is also found to have said that she did not know what happened after
the call was received by her daughter at 01.00 A.M. That her daughter
knew what happened. There is no evidence that after receiving the
information about her husband at 01.00 A.M she lost her senses or was
unable to think anything.
It cannot be that a wife would have no role to pay and be in a state
of peace when her husband does not return home and when it came to be
known to her that her husband had been kept confined by Amar Biswas
and two other persons and being assaulted and would not been released
unless her husband gave them Rs. 5,00,000/-. No evidence regarding the
anxiety which wife normally goes though when her husband leaves home
on receiving a call from someone with whom there is a strained relation
and does not return home till late in the night, came before the court. The
very fact that the wife is not anxious when her husband does not return
home even after midnight having left home at 12 noon after receiving a
phone call from one with whom her husband does not have good relation
goes to show that she was well aware of her husband's whereabouts.

PW-1 says that after her husband was kidnapped phone came on
18.03.2012 and 19.03.2012 that is on two occasions. But she never say
as to who made those calls and to whom those calls were made.
PW-1 had during her evidence in chief said that the F.I.R was
written as per her instruction by her daughter. In the F.I.R (exhibit 1/1)
the defacto (PW-1) is found to say that that on 18.03.2012 at 12 noon her
husband on receiving a call from Amar Biswas over his cell phone went
out of the house. Around 01.00 O' Clock in the night her husband called up
on her daughter's mobile number 8945866950 and told her that he has
been trapped by Amar Biswas and they were threatening to kill him if they
did not give Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 19.03.2012 the said persons called on her
brother-in-law Kanak Biswas's phone number 9433456735 from a phone
having number 8420689336 and threatened him to give the Rs. 5,00,000/with in two / three hours and delivered the money at Jelepara in Bagnan.
However during her evidence-in-chief PW-1 says that she could not say
her daughter's phone numbers nor the phone number of her brother-in-law
Kanak Biswas. That she could not say whether any information came in
her brother-in-law's mobile or not. That she could not tell the phone
number from which the call of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made. This goes to show
that the F.I.R was not in fact, written as per instruction of PW-1 (defacto)
and she actually does not have any knowledge of the contents of the F.I.R.
Thus I am to say that the evidence of PW-1 (defacto) itself I find contains
ring of doubt.
PW-2 Sunita Biswas who happens to be the daughter of the victim
is found to depose that on 18.03.2012 at around 12.00 noon Amar Biswas
called her father in his phone and took her father with him. That her father
did not return home. That at around 01.00 A.M she received a call from her
father. That her father told her that Amar Biswas and two other persons
had kept him confined in a house at Bagnan and that they were
demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- from her father and if her father did not give him
the money they will kill him. That next day they told about the incident to
her 'jethu' Kanak Biswas and thereafter, they went to PS and reported the
matter to PS. That thereafter, with help of police her father was recovered.
Kannak Biswas who deposed as PW-5 says that his house is besides his
brother's house. When PW-2 says that she had received a call at 01.00

A.M from her father informing that he was kept confined by Amar Biswas
and two persons and those persons were demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for
his release, why she waited till next morning to inform her uncle Kanak
Biswas about the matter is not explained. It is found from the evidence of
PW-6 who happens to be another brother of the victim, that he resides on
the top floor of the same building as that of the victim's family and the
victim's family resides on the ground floor. It is also found from the
evidence of the PW's that the victim lives in a joint family. PW-6 is found to
say he was not able to know much about the incident. As to why PW-6
was not informed about the incident on the very night the incident when
the incident came to the knowledge of the victim's daughter , is also not
explained. The very fact of not informing about the incident to the other
members of the family specially the brothers of the victim when it is found
that they reside in the same house and in the next house as that of the
victim against brings an air of suspicion regarding the facts of the incident.
PW-2 is found to be the scribe of the F.I.R. She is also found to be
the first person who had received information about the kidnapped of the
victim. She is also found to have gone to the PS to informed the police
about the incident. But she is found to say that she has not been
interrogated by the I.O. As to why such a vital witness of the case was not
examined by the I.O is not explained. As to why the call details of PW-2's
mobile phone was not got by the I.O when PW-2 is found to be the first
person to receive information about the kidnapped of the victim over her
phone is not said.
The very fact that PW-2 was not interrogated by the I.O shows that
whatever she said before the court during her evidence was stated by her
for the first time. Thus though she may be one of the vital witnesses of this
case, her evidence, in my opinion cannot be fully relied upon.
PW-3 Koushik Biswas who happens to be the son of the victim
though had corroborated PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the incident of
kidnapped and call for ransom is found also to have not been interrogated
by the I.O. and is saying about the incident for the first time. Thus I feel
that the evidence of PW-3 cannot also be fully relied upon.

No evidence came before the court as to what role was played by


P.W -3 after he had come to know about the fact of his father being
kidnapped. The very fact that PW-3 ,who happened to be the son of the
victim and an adult at the time of the alleged incident could have no role in
rescuing his father from the kidnappers brings a shadow of doubt
regarding the alleged incident.
PW-4 who happened to be the only non-relative other than the R.O
and I.O deposing in this case is on being questioned by the A.P.P t is
found to reply that Kamal Biswas was kidnapped from the high way near
her house. She on being cross-examined by the A.P.P after being declared
hostile is found to say that she had told the police that Amar Biswas of
Dhantala and two other persons had kidnapped Kamal Biswas and kept
him confined at Howrah in Bagnan and was demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- for
his release. However, during her cross-examination by the defence she is
found to be denied that she had told the police the above. This witness
never say as to from whom she heard about the incident. Her evidence
before the P.P and defence counsel are also found to be contradictory to
each other. She is also found not to be one of the neighbour of the victim,
whose houses are shown by the I.O in the sketch map of first P.O i.e.
exhibit 5. Thus I feel too much importance should not be put upon her
evidence.
Now let me go through the evidence of PW-5 Kanak Biswas, the
brother of the victim, who happens to be the other person who had
received call from the victim asking him to rescue him from the alleged
kidnappers and also to be one amongst the team who went to recover the
victim from his kidnappers.
PW-5 I find says that he came to know about the incident from his
brother who rang him up in his phone on 19 th morning from Bagnan,
however, in the F.I.R ,I find , it is stated that , the person who had kept
Kamal Biswas confined had called up on the phone of PW-5 and
threatened him to give the Rs. 5,00,000/- within two / three hours and
delivered the money at Jelepara Bagnan. PW-1 who is the defacto is
found to say that she does not know whether any information came in her
brother-in-law's mobile or not. PW-2 the daughter of the victim who also

happens to be the scribe of the F.I.R during her evidence , does not also
say about any call received by PW-5 from the victim ,as has been stated
by PW-5 or about any call received by PW-5 from the accused persons as
has been stated in the F.I.R. PW-6 the victim of this case on the other
hand, is found to say during his evidence-in-chief that after he regain
consciousness around 01.00 A.M on the night of his kidnap he was told by
Amar Biswas to call at his home and ask for Rs. 5,00,000/- or he would kill
him. That he had rang up in his 'mejda's' number from his own phone. PW5 is also found to say that except for having talks with his brother at 01.00
A.M he did not have any talks with any members of his family after that.
From the above I find that there is differences in the evidences as is
given by PW-5, PW-2 and PW-7and also in the F.I.R as to how and when
the information regarding the incident was received by Kanak Biswas (PW5).
PW-7, the victim has during his cross-examination said that at
01.00 A.M he rang up his 'mejda' in his 'mejda's' phone from his phone
informing his 'mejda' about the incident. Nowhere during his evidence-inchief he stated about any call been made to his daughter at 01.00 A.M on
the night of the incident. However, at one place during his crossexamination he says that he had talks with his daughter and 'mejda' on the
night of 18.03.2012 / 19.03.2012. Again at another place during his crossexamination he says that except for having talks with his brother at 01.00
A.M on that day he did not have any talks with any member of his family
after that. On scanning the statement of the victim U/S 164 of Cr.P.C I find
that the victim had during his statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C say that on that
day at around 01.00 /01.30 in the night he was made to call home in his
daughter's phone and asked his brother to give Rs. 5,00,000/- (

)
During his evidence PW-7 never say any thing in this regard.
From the evidence of PW-5 it is found that PW-5 resides in a house
besides that of the house of Kamal Biswas and not in the same house as
Kamal Biswas. The call as he says was made at 01.00 / 01.30 A.M. The

daughter of the victim i.e PW-2 says that they informed Kanak about the
incident in the morning of 19 th. This shows that Kanak was no where near
PW-2 at 01.00 /01.30 A.M so that he could had received the call from
Kamal on PW-2's phone at 01.00 / 01.30 A.M as stated by Kamal Biswas
during his statement U\S 164 of Cr. P. C
In the statement U/S 164 of Cr.P.C the victim says he was made to
call home every half an hour for money. PW-7 had during his crossexamination said that except for having talks with his brother at 01.00 A.M
on that day he did not have talks with any member of his family after that.
This shows that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW-7 before the
court and the statement made by him before the magistrate U/S 164 of
Cr.P.C.
PW-2 and PW-5 both say that the victim was recovered on 20 th at
night. The victim says he was recovered on 20 th around 02.30 / 03.00 P.M.
The I.O PW-10 says that the victim was recovered some time after 17.35
hours i.e. around 05.35 P.M. Thus I find that there is discrepancy regarding
the time when the victim was recovered.
PW-5 Kanak Biswas who is found to be one of the person who had
gone with the raiding party to recover the victim says that they left for
Bagnan from Gangnapur PS at 09.30 A.M / 10.00 A.M and reached
Bagnan at 03.00 P.M and started from Bagnan at 06.00 P.M where as PW10 i.e the I.O says that they left for raid on 20 th at 03.05 hours and reached
the P.O at 16.15 hours. As to at what time the recovery party set for
Bagnan from Gangnapur , I again find difference between the evidence
PW-5 and PW-10.
The I.O i,e PW-10 is also found to have stated that there is no
reflection in his C.D regarding the fact as to when he left for raid from
Gangnapur to Bagnan. The I.O said he took force from Bagnan Ps to
recover the victim. But he is found to say that no requisition for force was
made by him at Bagnan PS and he also did not make any reflection
regarding taking force from Bagnan PS for recovery of the victim ,in his
C.D also. No explanation is given by the I.O as to why no reflection
regarding the fact as to when he had left Gangnapur for Bagnan and why

no reflection about the force taken by him from Bagnan PS was not made
in his C.D. The very fact of not making any reflection in C.D regarding the
time for leaving for raid taking force from Bagnan PS for recovery of the
victim, the time when the victim was recovered raises doubt whether
actually the I.O had gone for raid to Bagnan and had taken force from
Bagnan to recover the victim and whether he did actually recover the
victim from the hands of his alleged kidnappers.
From evidence of both PW-5 and PW-10 I find that besides them
one A.S.I, named Avijit Banerjee had gone with them to recover the victim
as to why he was not called to give evidence is also not explained by the
prosecution.
As to why none of the persons of the force that the I.O says he took
from Bagnan P.S was not called to give evidence is also not explained.
PW-5, PW-7 & PW-10 says that accused Amar Biswas had fled
away so he could not be arrested. The I.O says Amar Biswas had fled
away as he had got prior information. If what the I.O says that Amar
Biswas had fled away as he had received prior information is considered
to be true then how come the other two accused who were together with
Amar Biswas could not have received prior information and not fled away.
And when Amar Biswas fled away why did they not flee away is not
explained. As to how Amar Biswas got prior information is also not stated
by the prosecution.
It has been alleged that the victim was taken away in a white
coloured

Maruti van from near electric power house, Mission gate,

Ranaghat. On going through the statement of accused Gobinda Biswas


and Baburam Naskar that is exhibit 9 series I find that it is mentioned
there by the accused Baburam and Gobinda that they were waiting in a
white coloured Maruti van near Mission gate. It is found that the two
accused Baburam and Gobinda was taken in police custody for six days.
Why no attempt was taken by the I.O to find out and seize the Maruti van
and find out the driver of the said Maruti van is not also explained.
Why the I.O availed of a private car and not an official vehicle while

going for recovering the victim is not stated by the I.O.


Why no one from around the 2nd P.O / house of Baburam Naskar
from where the victim is arrest to have been recovered is not brought as
witness is not explained by the prosecution.
Ld. A.P.P had while arguing the case had submitted that the
statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C being public document should be taken in to
consideration by the court and considered as a piece of evidence.
Statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C may be public document but
statement made by accused U/S 161 of Cr.P.C cannot be considered as
confessional statements. The statement U/S 161 of Cr.P.C

( Exhibit -9

series ) on which Ld. A.P.P asked the court to take into consideration was
made by the accused Baburam and Gobinda while they were in custody of
the police and not in the immediate presence of any magistrate. So the
statement shall not be proved against them.
Now let me go through exhibit 8 that is the call details of the
victim, Kamal Biswas's phone no. being no. 9333550811.
On going through the F.I.R and the evidences that has come on
record that facts of the case as is found, is that, the victim on receiving a
call at around 12.00 noon on 18.03.2012 from Amar Biswas set out from
his house towards Mission gate, Ranaghat, where the accused had asked
him to come. The accused who were waiting in a white coloured Maruti
van near the power house asked him to get up on the van which the victim
did. The victim was thereafter, taken away in that van to Bagnan after
being made unconscious and kept confined at accused Baburam Naskar's
house and told that unless Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid to the accused
persons they would kill him.
On going through exhibit 8 I find that the tower location of the victim's
phone shows that on 18.03.2012 from 09.08

Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the accused persons 1) Amar Biswas, 2) Babu Ram Naskar & 3)
Gobinda Biswas are found not guilty to the offence u/s 363/368/364(A)/34
of I.P.C. They are acquitted in terms of section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. They are
accordingly discharged from their respective bail bonds.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Asstt. Sessions Judge,
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Asstt. Sessions Judge,


Ranaghat, Nadia.

S.C. - 47 (01) 2011


Order No. 26, dated 06.05.2014.
All the three accused persons are present by filing hazira.
Today is fixed for judgement.
Judgement is ready and delivered in open court.
The operative portion of the judgement is as follows. That the
accused persons 1) Amar Biswas, 2) Babu Ram Naskar & 3) Gobinda
Biswas are found not guilty to the offence u/s 363/368/364(A)/34 of I.P.C.
They are acquitted in terms of section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. They are
accordingly discharged from their respective bail bonds.
Dictated & Corrected by me
Asstt. Sessions Judge,
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Asstt. Sessions Judge,


Ranaghat, Nadia.

Вам также может понравиться