KARTICK MONDAL AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-2015-2-25
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 16,2015

Kartick Mondal And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of West Bengal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In a sessions trial held before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia, the appellants in C.R.A.No. 509 of 2007, Kartick Mondal and Sufal Mondal, and the appellant in C.R.A. No.555 of 2007, Khudiram Biswas, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 364A/34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default clause. Apart from above, the appellant in C.R.A.No.555 of 2009, Khudiram Biswas, was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 419 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years with fine and default clause. The said order of conviction and sentence are under challenge in the aforesaid appeals.
(2.) During trial, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen (16) witnesses and out of them, the key witness was PW/6, Ramjana Halsana, the victim, who was allegedly abducted for ransom. However, five (5) prosecution witnesses were declared hostile, because they did not support its case. There were few other important witnesses examined by the prosecution, they were PW/1, Faraj Halsana, the maker of the FIR, PW/3, Naren Mondal, an employee of a telephone booth, and PW/15, Gopal Kishan Sinha, a Judicial Magistrate, held the TI Parade and PW/16, Anirban Roy, another Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statements of PW/6, Ramjana Halsana, PW/12, Raju Biswas and PW/13, Ashok Biswas. The PW/12 and PW/13 were the witnesses of seizure of the motor-cycle belonging to the victim and the victim was riding the said motor-cycle when abducted.
(3.) It was the case of the prosecution that PW/6, Ramjana Halsana, was a Kabiraj by profession. It is its further case that on January 17, 2006 at around 11.30 a.m., one unknown person came to the PW/6 and disclosed his identity as Niranjan Modak and requested him to attend a patient at Jayghata-Majdia, who suffered a leg fracture. Since on that day, PW/6 was otherwise busy, he requested the accused Niranjan Modak to bring the patient to his chamber, but the said witness expressed his inability and then January 19, 2006 was fixed for visiting the patient. On January 19, 2006, at around 5.30 a.m. PW/6 left his house informing his mother and wife (both not examined) and brother, Faraj Halsana, (PW/1) that he was going to attend a patient at Jayghata-Majdia, who suffered fracture and at that time, he also carried his mobile phone with him. On his way, he received a phone call from Niranjan Modak, who informed him that he was standing near a telephone booth and from there he would take him to the house of the patient. After reaching near a telephone booth, Niranjan Modak was found there and he took his seat behind him in the motor-cycle and moved towards the house of the patient. After proceeding about one and half km, one person was found standing on the road with a gun in his hand, another accompanying him. At that place PW/6 was forced to get down from his motor-cycle by said Niranjan and two others and was dragged at the gun point inside a banana garden. The said miscreants snatched away his wrist-watch and mobile phone and he was asked to contact his brother and when contacted the miscreants demanded ransom of Rs. 20 lakhs from his brother and threatened that unless their demand is fulfilled, the PW/6 will be killed. Subsequently, on January 21, 2006, the victim was taken to the house of the PW/2, Raju Biswas (hostile) and from there with the help of PW/2, he went to a nearest police camp and informed the entire incident.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.