Md. Badiyat Zaman & Ors vs State of Assam

This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 13.02.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in Sessions Case No.

73/2005 convicting the accused-appellants, under Sections 364/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years

and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with a default clause.

I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellants assisted by the learned counsel, Mr. A Ahmed

as well as Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

The fact leading to the case is that, on 12.05.2002, Sri Kalipada Saha/the victim, went out at about 8:30 pm to play cards in the house of one

Jahanuddin. Some people were already playing cards there and he joined them, and thereafter, the present accused-appellant Md. Badiyat Zaman

came there and joined them. Thereafter, he left the place of occurrence to come back again. Thereafter, 7/8 persons appeared in the place of

occurrence covering their faces, armed with dagger, etc and took the victim/Kalipada Saha out. The victim/Kalipada Saha could identify the

present accused-appellants, Badiyat Zaman and Abdul Karim. On the said date, since Kalipada Saha did not come back home, his son, Deepak

Kumar Saha lodged an FIR with the Chithila Police Out Post and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Fakiragram Police Station for

registering a case. Accordingly, the Fakiragram Police Station registered a case, being No. 19/2002, under Sections 365/34 of the IPC,

investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-appellants and others under Sections 364/34 of

the IPC.

After exhausting all the required legal formalities, the learned trial court framed a formal charge against the accused-appellants under Sections

364/34 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. Hence, the trial commenced.

In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Police Officer. On

scrutiny of the evidence on record, it appears that out of the witnesses examined, the PW2/the victim himself and the PW3, brother of one of the

accused persons, are the most vital witnesses.

The evidence of PW2, Kalipada Saha/the victim is that he was taken by 7/8 persons from the house of one Jahanuddin, where he was playing

cards with some others. He could identify the accused Badiyat Zaman and Abdul Karim as the persons who had taken him from the house of the

aforesaid Jahanuddin who came with their faces covered. The evidence of PW2 makes it clearly appear that the aforesaid persons has taken him

on foot for two hours crossing a river on gun point. He was detained in the bank of the river for more than two hours. In the early morning, he was

detained in a house, and thereafter, in the evening, he was taken to a jungle and tied him with a tree and his eyes were covered. He was, thereafter,

recovered by the Police.

The evidence of PW3 is that, on the date of occurrence, he was in his father-in-law''s place along with his wife and he returned to his house on

the next day. He left for his father-in-law''s place after locking the door of his house but when he came back on the next day, he found that the lock

of the door of his house was broken and when he entered into the house, he found one Bengali person, aged about 40 years, in his house and his

hands were tied and eyes were covered. He found the accused-appellant Hazrat in his house. He also found one Amir in his house.

This witness (PW3) informed the matter to the VDP Secretary and then he went to the Bhowraguri Police Out Post along with the VDP

Secretary and informed about the said fact of detaining the victim Kalipada Saha in his house. Thereafter, the Police recovered the victim from a

horticulture garden where he was tied with a tree. He has also named the bengali person as Kalipada Saha, i.e., the victim in the instant case.

PW10 is the Investigating Police Officer who has subscribed to the evidence of PW2 as regard to the recovery of the victim Kalipada Saha. He

deposed that the Police from Bhowraguri Police Out Post recovered the victim Kalipada Saha from the jungle which is near the house of PW3.

The PWs4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are heard saying that while playing cards they saw some persons taking the victim Kalipada Saha out of the house

of Jahanuddin where they were playing cards.

Therefore, the evidence of the vital witnesses, i.e, PW2 and PW3 taken together with the evidence of PW10, Investigating Police Officer,

makes it more than clear that the victim was recovered by Police from a horticulture garden while he was tied with a tree and that the PW3

reported the occurrence to the Police and the recovery of the victim was a follow-up action of his such information to the Police. The evidence of

PW2 that he was taken and kept in the night on the bank of a river and in the early morning, he was taken to a house, is tallied by the evidence of

PW3, while PW3 deposed that the victim was found in his house with accused Hazrat and Amir Hussain (this accused is not before this Court).

The evidence, aforesaid, shows that the victim Kalipada Saha was kidnapped is a fact which remained unassailed inspite of cross-examination

of the witnesses at length. There might be some discrepancies, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, to the effect that

how could the victim identify the accused-appellants while their faces were covered by clothes. But, he has explained in his cross-examination that

he knew accused-appellant Badiyut Zaman from before and he could identify him from his physic as well as hair. Even if, for the sake of argument,

the identification of the accusedappellants by the victim Kalipada Saha is not believed for a moment, yet the evidence of PW3 that the present

accused-appellants were seen by him in his house along with Amir Hussain makes everything clear.

Such evidence with minor discrepancies do not touch the root of the case. On the basis of the above evidence, this Court has no doubt that it

was none but the accused-appellants, who had kidnapped the victim Kalipada Saha. That being so, the decision, rendered by the learned trial

court of the Sessions Judge, is found to have been based on the evidence on record.

The learned trial court convicted the accused-appellants under Sections 364/34 of the IPC, but, on perusal of the evidence on record, it is not

found that it is a case covered by the provisions of Section 364 of the IPC rather it is a case covered by the provisions of Section 365 of the IPC

as there is no accusations that the victim Kalipada Saha was abducted or kidnapped with a view to murder. Therefore, the accused-appellants are

convicted under Section 365 of the IPC instead of Section 364 of the IPC.

In the considered view of this Court, considering the background of the case, and the evidence on record, if the accused-appellants are

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 365 of the IPC, it will meet the ends

of justice.

Accordingly, the accused-appellants are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year instead of rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven)

years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sections 365/34 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellants shall undergo

rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) days each.

The period of detention of the accused-appellants in custody, during investigation and after the trial, be set off against the substantive sentence.

The accused-appellants are directed to surrender before the learned trial court to serve out their sentences.

Send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment.