Harun Miah VsThe State of Tripura

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 11.04.2008 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura whereby learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur dated 29.10.2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted of having committed an offence of kidnapping of one Smt. Pinki Mitra and convicted him along with one Palanjoy Reang for having committed offences punishable u/s 147 IPC and Section 365 IPC and sentenced the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence u/s 147 IPC.

The prosecution story briefly stated is that the petitioner was part of a group of militants, who abducted a number of persons including one minor girl Pinki Mitra. It was also alleged that these persons had arms and had violated the provisions of the Arms Act and therefore, they were charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 448 and 365 IPC. Only the petitioner and Palanjoy Reang were convicted as aforesaid. The appeals filed by them were dismissed and hence, this petition.

I have heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. for the State.

From the evidence, I find that there is sufficient proof with regard to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is the mother of the victim Pinki Mitra, who was aged about 10 years at the time. She has clearly stated that the accused took away her daughter Pinki and kept her for about 51 days. She has however, not identified any of the kidnapper. The mother or the father of the girl have not been cross-examined with regard to the fact that their daughter Pinki Mitra was kidnapped by some militants.

One Rakhal Chandra Nama also stated that he was kidnapped by some militants and he could identify two of the militants. One of the persons was identified as the petitioner. Similarly, P.W. 7 Pradip Debnath had also stated that he was kept in custody by some extremists and he had identified Gatiram Reang, Harun Miah (petitioner) and Palanjoy Reang. P.W. 8 was also kidnapped and he had also identified the same three persons. Similar is the statement of P.W. 9. It is also in evidence that after the adult persons were kidnapped and the police came on the spot, there was exchange of fire between the extremists and the police and thereafter, the victims managed to escape.

The most important evidence is of P.W. 2 Pinky Mitra, the child victim, who remained in the custody of the petitioner for 51 days. She has clearly stated that on the date of occurrence after 7 p.m., some extremist entered her house and kidnapped her. She was kept in a deep jungle. Some time she had to sleep in the open, but when it was raining the kidnappers used to put a tent over her. She has stated that she was not tortured and was provided food and water. She could identify the two accused Harun Miah and Palanjoy Reang. She also clearly stated that she was not ill-treated during this time.

In view of the above statements, I am clearly of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Coming to the issue of sentence, one must remember that at the relevant time, Tripura was in the grip of extremist violence and a number of misguided youth had joined the extremists. It appears that the petitioner was part of this group of misguided youth. He was not heading the extremist party, but was one of the members of the party. None of the victims have stated that they were ill-treated. In fact, Pinki Mitra clearly stated that she was treated very well by her captors including the present petitioner. The occurrence took place in the year 2000. More than 14 years have elapsed and at this stage, when the petitioner has lived and stayed in society and has given up the path of violence, it would be highly unjust to send him back to jail. He had during the course of trial spent almost two years in jail and therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that the ends of justice shall be served in case this quantum of sentence is reduced to that already undergone by the petitioner.

The petition is allowed to the limited extent and the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is altered and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He shall also not be liable to pay any fine.

With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed of.