1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE ……….KARIMGANJ. SESSIONS CASE NO 75 of 2012 (U/S. 365/201/120(B)/302 IPC & 27 Arms Act) Present:-Shri K. Choudhury, LL.M., Sessions Judge, Karimganj. State of Assam …………………………………………………………Complainant. -Versus- 1) Salim Uddin @ Shilu 2) Hifjur Rahman @ Hiju 3) Rajani Talukdar 4) Kamal Hussain, 5) Hussain Ahmed @ Mojnu, 6) Sultan Uddin, 7) Mumin Uddin, 8) Riaz Uddin, 9) Nazim Uddin @ Rakkey, 10) Raju Ahmed, 11) Md. Babul Mia @ Siraj Uddin, 12) Shamim Ahmed, 13) Monowara Bibi:- ……………..…………..……………….…………….Accused
Charge framed on:- …………………….…………………29/05/2012 & 30/05/2012.
P.Ws. examined on :- …………………………. 20/06/2012, 21/06/2012, 25/06/2012 26/06/2012, 28/06/2012, 29/06/2012, 09/07/2012, 24/08/2012, 28/08/2012, 29/08/2012, 11/09/2012, 12/09/2012, 26/09/2012, 28/09/2012, 29/09/2012, 03/10/2012, 06/10/2012, 08/10/2012, 10/10/2012, 16/10/2012, 11/12/2012.
Statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C :- 17/11/2012, 19/11/2012. Argument heard on:- 20/12/2012 and 21/12/2012, Judgment pronounced on:- 04/01/2013. Hearing on the point of Sentence:- 07/01/2013. Final Judgment pronounced and delivered on:- 07/01/2013.
Counsel Appeared: Advocate for the prosecution:- ………………………………. Mr. R. K. Deb, P.P., Mr. Biplab Deb.
2
Advocate for the defence:-………………….……….. 1. Mr.Debasish Chakraborty, 2. Mr. M.C.Debnath, 3. Mr. Ranjan Roy. JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief as it evolves in the record is that on 19/11/2011 at about 6-30 p.m. Ahrar Ahmed alias Naj, a BSC 3rd year student, elder son of the complainant Tofail Ahmed went out towards Bhanga bazaar with his motorbike bearing Registration No. AS-10- A/1666 and at 7-34 p.m. he had a talk with his mother from his mobile phone bearing no. 7896242528. After that his mobile set was found switched off and he did not return to his home. On the following morning at about 7-00 a.m. the bike could be traced out as abandoned being informed by accused Rajani Talukder. An ejahar was lodged to the effect that said Naj was kidnapped by some culprits and accused Rajani was involved with the crime. Subsequently, police was informed by the complainant on 22/11/2011 to the effect that on the last 20/11/2011 at about 4-40 p.m. he received telephonic demand of ransom amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/- from mobile phone bearing no. 9862919223 and after bargaining the amount of ransom was reduced and the miscreants agreed on 21/11/2011 to release Naj on receipt of Rs. 12,00,000/-. Accordingly on 22/11/2011 he for safe rescue of his son went towards Sonapur, Meghalaya with vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-10/2070 accompanied by a driver Kamal Uddin and there he made payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- to the miscreants as per their direction at Mandihati (Meghalaya) but his son was not handed over to him. After that he came back to Badarpur and informed the police in writing in detail.
2. The ejahar as lodged against accused Rajani and some other miscreants was registered as Badarpur P.S. Case No 181/2011 U/S 365 3
IPC. On the basis of said information investigation was initiated. Accused Rajani was apprehended and from whom it was surfaced that as per pre plan he handed over Naj to accused Salim Uddin, Rehan, Kamal, Hifjur and Hujur at Chorgola, Karimganj near Reliance Petrol Pump. The victim Naj was taken away in a Maruti 800 car of accused Rehan (absconder) towards Bhanga side. The motor cycle of Naj was found in an abandoned condition near Chorgola area. On 20/2/2011 the Maruti car allegedly used by the culprits for alleged kidnapping was found as abandoned. During further investigation dead body of victim Naj could be dug out from Dumurgool of Monosangam area under Badarpur P.S. The same was sent for post mortem examination. Doctors found bullet injury on the head with other injuries and the injuries were ante mortem.
3. During further investigation an amount of Rs. 97,000/- was recovered from accused Salim Uddin at Bilonia,Tripura and Rs. 6,88,500/- was recovered from accused Sultan Uddin at Ladrimbai , Meghalaya which were allegedly the ransom amount received from the complainant Tufail Ahmed. Arms and ammunitions which were allegedly used for killing of Naj were recovered.
4. During the course of investigation on prayer of Investigating Officer (I/O) Section 120 B/302 /201 IPC and Section 25(1-B) (a)/27(3) Arms Act were added. Present accused persons were apprehended and arrested, and on completion of investigation I/O submitted charge-sheet U/Ss 120B/365/302/201/384 IPC read with Section 25(1-B) (a)/27(3) Arms Act against 20 numbers of accused persons showing seven of them as absconders.
5. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj after furnishing copies of all necessary police papers as referred U/S 4
173(2) Cr.P.C. committed the offences against the present thirteen number of accused persons. I after hearing both sides at very length found prima facie case was made out against all the thirteen number of accused persons U/S 120B IPC/302/34 IPC, 201/34 PC and 27(3) Arms Act. Case was also found to be made out prima facie U/S 387/34 IPC against seven numbers of accused persons namely, Selim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Kamal Hussain, Sultan Uddin, Mumin Uddin, Riaz Uddin, Nizam Uddin and Raju Ahmed. Similarly against accused Selim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Kamal Hussain, Rajani Talukder and Hussain Ahmed, case was found to be made out prima facie U/S 365/34 IPC. Additional materials were found prima facie making out a case against Hifjur U/S 25(1A)Arms Act, 1959. Accordingly formal charges against all the accused persons were framed, read over and explained to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, I further proceeded to hear the case. On different occasions copies of papers relating to investigation such as arrest memo, interrogation slip, forwarding report etc. were provided to the learned defence counsel on their prayer.
6. The prosecution in support of the case at first examined as many as 22 nos. of witnesses including 3 nos. of I/O, one armorer and one doctor. Amongst the above PW 2 is the wife of accused Hifjur Rahman and PW 3 is the mother of accused Hussain Ahmed alias Mojnu.
During trial on 25/6/2012 receiving of oral submission of learned defence counsel Mr. Ranjan Roy in the open Court against the complainant, the PW1, to the effect that the PW1 made inducement and threat etc. to PW 2, Najima Begum, I examined her as court witness. She denied any such threat or inducement. Rather 5
she was scared of her husband (accused Hifjur). It is also to be noted here that the complainant (PW 1) in writing brought allegations about threat of his life against some of the accused persons including accused Salim Uddin. Subsequently after completion of his evidence it was reported to this court that he was shot dead. It is further to be noted here that during trial in pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 23/07/12 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No 295/2012 charges u/s. 120(B)/302/201/34 IPC against accused Shamim Uddin have been stayed and trial proceeded against him only u/s. 27(3) Arms Act.
7. At the later stage of the trial, accused Babul Ali, his wife Monowara Begum and accused Hussain Ahmed expressed in the open court to give evidence in favour of the prosecution. They on the next occasion were separately produced and heard. Accused Babul Ali in writing expressed to give evidence as approver. Prosecution side also endorsed the petition and made submissions for examination of the accused as approver. Accordingly he was declared approver u/s. 307 Cr.P.C. and examined as PW 23.
8. Accused persons were examined in detail u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. Their statements were accordingly recorded. The accused Hussain Ahmed substantially admitted the evidence of his mother the PW 3. However, he pleaded as innocent. Rest of the accused persons except accused approver Babul Ali denied their involvement in the alleged crime. Some of them also took the plea of alibi.
9. Now, under the facts and circumstances of the case, following are the major points for determination:- 6
(i) Whether all the accused persons were a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of kidnapping of Ahrar Ahmed @ Naj and his murder for the purpose of extortion of money from the complainant as charged U/S 120(B) IPC ?
(ii) Whether Naj, son of the complainant PW 1, was kidnapped by accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Kamal Hussain, Rjani Talukder, Hussain Amed in furtherance of their common intention as charged U/S 365/34 IPC ?
(iii) Whether the accused persons namely, Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Kamal Hussain, Sultan Uddin, Mumin Uddin, Riaz Uddin, Nizam Uddin, Raju Ahmed, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in furtherance of their common intention attempted to extort of Rs 50,00,000/- and also extorted Rs 12 Lacs from the complainant ?
(iv) Whether all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Naj with assault causing head injury and also by bullet injury as charged U/S 302/34 IPC?
(v) Whether all the accused persons caused disappearance of evidenceof the offence of murder by wayof concealment of the dead body of Naj,wearing apparels of deceased Naj,arms and ammunition etc. in furtherance of their common intention as charged U/S 201/34 IPC ?
(vi) Whether all or any of the accused persons used prohibited arms for causing death of Naj as charged U/S 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 ?
7
(vii) Whether accused Hifjur Rahman was found in possession of one factory made pistol and one live ammunition in contravention of provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as charged for offence punishable U/S 25(1A) of the Act ?
10. To decide the above points, I have heard the learned counsel of both sides at very length, perused and thoroughly scrutinized and scanned the evidence on record. My findings, decision and reasons thereof are given below.
FINDINGS, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF
11. As prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence that collected in different stages of the investigation by way of discovery of incriminating materials on the basis of some information allegedly gathered from the mouth of some accused and witnesses, I feel it necessary to discuss the entire evidence of the witnesses on the record including the evidence of the PW 1 & PW 21 which are in voluminous due to their examinations and cross examinations at very length continued for days together.
12. PW 1 is the complainant, the father of victim Naj. According to him on 19/11/2011 (Saturday) at bout 6-30 PM his son Naj went out with his motor cycle with information to his mother return back within one and half hour from Bhanga bazar. At about 7-34 PM Naj over telephone informed his mother that he would go to Chorgola with one person and would return within one and half hour. However, when he did not return back his mother tried to contact him over telephone but found his mobile as switched off. PW 1 further deposed that when he returned home at about 9-30 PM his wife informed him that the mobile 8
of their son Naj found as switched off which was unusual thing to them. After waiting for sometimes he went for search of Naj but finding no clue returned home. On the following morning at about 6-30 AM he again went out with his car and met Kamrul Islam, an owner of hardware shop, who advised to meet Rajani Talukder, a motor mechanic whom Naj use to meet. After that both he and Kamrul Islam went to the house of Rajani Talukder who is one of the accused of this case. On query Rajani told that on the previous night at about 8 PM Naj was with him and asked to manage a motor cycle to search Naj at Karimganj.
13. His further evidence is that after that one motorcycle was managed and given to the accused Rajani, who went towards Karimganj. After 15 minutes Rajani over telephone informed him (PW1) that motorcycle of Naj was found lying on the road side near Reliance Petrol Pump of Chargola. On search the same was not found. After that accused Rajani again told him that Rajani was at Chargola. He then came to Chargola and found Rajani in a nervous condition in front of a shop and on query Rajani asked to go with him. Both of them proceeded towards Karimganj and on the way Rajani told him (PW 1) the motorcycle of Naj lying on the road side ditch at a distance of about 250 meter from Chargola bazar. On his alarm nearby people gathered. In the meantime Rajani left the place. He having doubt against Rajani asked some of the people of Bhanga to follow Rajani. He along with Kamrul, Basit, Fakar, Matab and others went back to Bhanga and found Rajani was surrounded by villagers. Under pressure of villagers he disclosed that there had been a conspiracy about 7 days back in a restaurant near Reliance Petrol Pump where accused Salim Uddin, Rehan and two others asked him to join in the conspiracy to kidnap Naj and for which he would be given Rs. 2,00,000/-.
9
14. It is further disclosed to villagers that on 19/11/11 at about 12-00 noon accused Rajani being called met Salim Uddin and some absconder accused and other unidentified persons at Reliance Petrol Pump where a plan was made to call Naj for kidnapping. As per the plan accused Salim Uddin gave Rajani Rs.1500/- in advance with a bottle of corex for consumption of Naj. A motorcycle was also given to Rajani. It is further disclosed that Rajani received a telephone call from Naj at about 6-40 p.m. to the effect that Naj would arrive at Mokoi Bhanga. On being so informed Rajani went at Mokhoir Bhanga and met Naj with a request to go to Badarpur for purchasing cloth. According to the PW 1 Rajani further disclosed that after reaching at Badarpur Rajani changed his mind and returned back with Naj with their two motorcycles and when they reached Kandigram (in between Mokoi Bhanga and Badarpur) Rajani stopped there with a pretext to consumed cough syrup (corex) as provided by accused Salim Uddin. Having seen the same Naj also expressed to have the same. After that cough syrup was given to Naj who consumed the same. Naj was invited to have a dinner in the restaurant near Reliance Petrol Pump. When they reached near the place Naj fell down due to intoxication. It was then 8-30 p.m. Salim Uddin being informed came there with a blue Maruti Car along with accused Hifjur Rahman, Rehan Uddin (absconder), Munna (absconder), Kamal Hussain and others. All of them lifted Naj being in an unconscious condition and proceeded towards Bhanga.
15. According to PW 1, it was further disclosed that Rajani was asked by accused Salim Uddin to go back to home and to be ready for going to Ladrombai where payment would be made.
16. His further version is that, after the above disclosure of the accused Rajani police was informed by one Fakar Uddin of Kandigram. 10
After that police came. Rajani was handed over to police. After that FIR, the Ext.1 was lodged to Badarpur PS. On the same date at about 4- 30 p.m. police seized the motorcycle being led by accused Rajani Talukdar. Seizure list was prepared on the spot in presence of witnesses. Ext.2 is the seizure list.
17. The PW 1 further deposed that during the above seizure of the motor cycle he got two telephone calls one from Kamal Uddin and other from Farid Uddin of the same village namely, Kandigram. Kamal Uddin informed that on the previous night at about 7-15 PM he saw accused Rajani and Naj were proceeding towards Karimganj with their two motor cycles. Farid Uddin informed that he saw at about 8 PM Naj and Rajani standing with their motor cycles near Arengabad village on the road. He further informed that he talked with Naj who informed that due to some mechanical defects Rajani had to wait there. On being so informed the PW 1 informed the police and went to Bakharsal mosque for evening prayer.
18. His further evidence is that when he came out from the mosque at about 5-45 PM he received one telephonic call in Hindi language with information of Naj and demand of Rs. 50 Lacs for release of Naj. He repeatedly received telephonic call from the said number till the following morning with the same demand of money. On his request to telephonic caller to give a chance for talking with Naj it was replied that it was not possible as Naj was kept in a place where there was no mobile network about 7 KM area. After that he tried to convince the telephonic caller to agree with Rs. 5 Lacs. However, with continuous bargaining he agreed to pay Rs. 7 Lacs.
11
19. It is further deposed that during telephonic conversation and request for giving chance to talk with naj he heard voice of accused Selim Uddin, who instructed the telephonic caller calling Mumin not to allow any such request. He also deposed that accused Selim Uddin was of their locality and he was acquainted with the voice of the accused and as such he could identify the voice of the accused.
20. His further evidence is that on that night at about 10 PM he received last call for the night and he agreed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs as ransom. On the following morning he received another call with Nagamese language with information not to worry about Naj as Naj was kept nicely and on receipt of ransom money he would get his son Naj and it was their business. Till then ransom amount was not finally settled. After that at about 9 AM he received a call with a demand of Rs. 30 Lacs as ransom. However, ransom was settled at Rs 12 Lacs with a request to go to Sonapur, Meghalaya with that amount by his own car alone.
21. His further evidence is that for the safety of his son he did not inform the police about the same and after managing of the said amount on his request the telephonic caller allowed him to go with other vehicle with a driver because of his illness and mental condition. Accordingly he reached Sonapur at about 5-30 PM and finding no mobile network he proceeded further for about 10 KM and contacted the telephonic caller who asked him to go up to Mandihati, Meghalaya where he as per telephonic instruction kept Rs. 12 Lacs near a drain. Then he was directed to go back with acknowledgement of the receipt of the amount and information that he would get back his son Naj at Malidahar. He, however, did not get his son at Malidahar even after search in the surrounding area of the jungle. He found the telephone of 12
the telephonic caller as switched off. He then returned to Badarpur and informed about the above development in writing to the police. Ext. 3 is his statement in writing given to the police which read as follows –
“ I have the honour to state that last evening i.e., on 20/11/2011 at about 4-40 PM I have received a telephonic demand of ransom money of Rs. 50,00,000/- ( Fifty Lacs) over mobile phone No 9862919223 and after bargaining next morning i.e., on today 21/11/2011 in a compelling situation I was agreed to pay Rs 12,00,000/- ( Twelve Lacs ) for rescue of my son Ahrar Ahmed (Naj) from the miscreants and the said miscreants also agreed to release my son after receiving Rs. 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lacs) and they also stated that said payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lacs) receive from me at Sonapur, Meghalaya. Accordingly today I have managed Rs. 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lacs) from the proprietor of Royal Energy Station ( Petrol Pump ), Lamajuar and M/S Abdul Quayum, Kanishail, Karimganj respectively. Thereafter managing vehicle No AS-10-2070 accompanied with driver Kamal Uddin son of late Abdun Noor of village North Kandigram proceeded towards Sonapur and make payment of Rs 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lacs) to the miscreants at Mandihati, ( Meghalaya) but unfortunately after making payments of Rs 12,00,000/-(Twelve Lacs) to the miscreants I am failed to rescue my son. So it is very much required to inform you as an investigation officer for taking necessary action, for extorted money from me by the miscreants for safe rescue of my son.”
22. It is seen that the said Ext. 3 was entered as Badarpur PS GD entry No 575 dated 22/11/2011 and amalgamated with Badarpur PS Case No 181/2011 U/S 365 IPC. 13
23. His further evidence is that subsequently on 22/11/2011 he could know about the recovery of blue coloured Maruti car and on 25/11/2011 about the recovery of the dead body of his son Naj from Dumurgool of Monosangan area. After few days he was informed by the police about the recovery of mobile set from the house of accused Rajani Talukder. He then went there and identified the mobile set as of his son Naj. The same was seized by the police vide Ext. 4 in presence of him and other witnesses. Material Ext. 1 is that mobile set. Major portion of the ransom amount was recovered from the accused persons.
24. In the cross-examinations for all the accused persons it is seen that the PW 1 reiterated whatever deposed in his evidence in chief. No material contradiction could be brought by the defence even though the P.W.1 was cross-examined at very length on three different dates. However, some omissions with regard to details of statements as made before this Court are bought in the cross-examination. He, however, clearly stated in the cross examination that the place of recovery of motor cycle was a lonely one. It is seen in the cross examination that the accused Salim Uddin and Sultan Uddin were well known to the PW 1 since before alleged occurrence
25. PW 2 is Najima begum, the wife of accused Hifjur Rahman According to her about 10 months back of her adducing evidence she got married with the accused and started to live with him in his house at Monosangan. She knew accused Salim Uddin. On 19/11/2011 at about 1 PM accused Hifjur received one telephonic call from accused Salim Uddin for going to Karimganj. Knowing the same she requested her husband to take her with him as her father‘s house falls on the way but he refused. On the same date at about 4 PM he (accused Hifjur) went out 14
of the house and on that night at about 12 O‘clock her paternal aunt-in- law namely, Moriom Bibi told the father of the accused namely, absconder accused Abdul Karim that dacoit Hifjur along with others were going to kill one person. Her further evidence is that on the following morning accused Hifjur returned home. On her query about his absence in the previous night he told that they killed one boy of Bhanga area. On that night i.e., on 20/11/2011 the accused also did not return home. On the following day i.e., on 21/11/2011 Monday morning the accused returned home and had a meeting with his father, brother accused Raju and accused Babul Ali who discussed about the way of shifting the dead body to Dumurgool from near the house of Moriom bibi. On that evening she saw accused Babul Ali, Hifjur, Karim and Raju went out from their house and to take pieces of bamboo, rope and dao. Her husband also did not return back on that night and also on the following Tuesday and Wednesday. Similarly other accused also did not return back. On the following Thursday i.e., on 24/11/2011 police of Badarpur PS came to her house and she disclosed the above. She also gave statement before the Magistrate. Ext. 5 is her statement. Ext. 5(1) to 5(5) is her signatures. She gave evidence staying at her father‘s house as pregnant for about 7 months.
26. PW 3 namely, Moriom Bibi, mother of accused Hussain Ahmed. She deposed that about 7 months back on one Saturday night at about 12 O‘clock while she was lying on the bed hearing sound awake and made query about the presence of anybody. She was then asked not to make noise. At that time accused Hussain Ahmed was in the house. After that accused Hifjur Rahman with 4/5 others breaking door forcibly entered into the house and forcibly took away accused Hussain Ahmed on the point of pistol. After sometimes she came out and happened to notice light of mobile phone below her ‗tilla‘ land and also heard alarm 15
of persons and also sounds of gun fire. She then raised alarm and after that with her 9 years old son went across the jungle and reached the house of father of accused Hifjur Rahman and reported him about the killing of some person by his son and others. After that she following main road when came near to her house she found one vehicle standing on the road below her ‗tilla‘ homestead. She happened to see two persons were inside the vehicle and one getting into the same. She also saw accused Hifjur was standing near the vehicle. Seeing her accused Hifjur asked her about the place wherefrom she returned. On her reply the accused threatened her not to make any noise otherwise she would face dire consequences. On the following morning she heard about the missing of one person.2/3 days after police came to her house. She did not tell anything to them. After that public of the locality set fire in her house. Again when police came to her house she stated what she knew and accordingly she deposed before this Court. She gave also statement before the Magistrate during investigation accordingly.
27. From the above evidence of both the PW 2 and 3 it is seen that both of them are related with the accused Hifjur and Hussain Ahmed. They corroborated each other. Although the PW 2 was cross examined in detail but her testimony regarding the circumstances before and after the alleged occurrence could not be shaken out. She categorically denied that she gave statement both before the I/O and the Magistrate under the fear and pressure of police and public. No contradiction could be brought in her evidence on any material point or circumstances of the case.
28 It has come out in the cross examination of PW 3 that distance between her house and house of accused Hifjur is not much following jungle way and is about one kilometer following main road. A 16
contradiction has brought to the effect that she stated before the I/O that on that night her son accused Hussain Ahmed was not at home which she, however, denied.
29. PW 4 is one Kamal Uddin of village South Kandigram under Badarpur PS deposed that he had a grocery shop in the turning point of Kandigram. He knew the deceased Naj. At the material period on one Saturday at about 7-15 PM while he was proceeding towards mosque from his shop on the way he saw said Naj with a bike and accused Rajani with another bike proceeding towards Karimganj side slowly talking with each other. On the following day when he heard missing of said Naj he at about 5/5-30 PM informed father of Naj, the complainant, about the above.
30. The above evidence corroborated the evidence of the PW 1with regard to the report about the last scene of Naj with accused Rajani Talukder. No material contradiction or omission could be brought in his cross examination
31. PW 5 is one Forid uddin of village South Kandigram which falls in between Badarpur and Karimganj intervened by Mokoi-Bhanga, Bhanga, Chorgola, Arengabad, and other places. According to him on 19/11/2011 he came to Karimganj in connection with distribution of medicine and at the time of returning at about 7-45/8 PM when he reached at Arengabad near BRTF office with his bike he suddenly noticed Naj was waiting on the road. On his query Naj told about some problems in the bike of Rajani who was found near the bike. On the following morning when he learnt that Naj was missing he told his shop owner about the above. In the evening at about 5/5-30 PM he informed 17
father of Naj over telephone about the above what he had seen in the previous night.
32. His evidence also corroborated the evidence of PW 1 about the report of last scene of Naj with accused Rajani Talukder on the night of occurrence. No contradiction or even any omission could be brought in his cross examination. Moreover, nothing could be brought to suggest any cogent reason to believe his testimony. From the above evidence of PW 1, 4 and 5 it clearly appears that both Rajani and deceased Naj was together on the alleged night of occurrence. Total denial of such evidence is not at all believable. Therefore, it is very natural that people will expect reasonable answer of missing of Naj from the mouth of accused Rajani. So, it cannot be believable that he did not say anything to the people or to the complainant anything about the missing of Naj with whom the accused had got some intimacy.
33. PW 6 is one Kamrul Islam of village Sarapur under Badarpur PS. According to him, he had a hardware shop at Bhanga motor stand. He knew accused Selim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Kamal Uddin, Mumin, Rajani Talukder, Hussain Ahmed and Sultan Uddin. On 25/11/2011 he along with many other villagers and police personnel went to Monosangan which is at a distance of about 7/8 KM from his shop. Before that he came to know that on the previous night one Monowara Begum, Najima Begum and Moriom Bibi were arrested by police in connection with this case. Dead body of Naj was kept concealed at Monosangan near the house of accused Babul Ali whom he also knew. On 25/11/2011 he along with the villagers and police personnel went to the house of accused Babul Ali. After that accused Monowara Begum, wife of accused Babul Ali took the police and then to a place where Naj was buried. The place is a ‗tilla‘ land where from dead body of Naj was 18
lifted from the burial place in presence of Magistrate. The dead body was identified by him as of Naj whom he knew since childhood. Inquest report was prepared by the Magistrate. Ext 6(1) is his signature in the inquest report. Police took the dead body for post mortem examination. After few days perhaps on 4/12/2011 at 12 noon police came to his shop along with one Habibul Haque of Routhgram village.
34. It is seen in the cross examination that there is no dispute about the recovery of dead body, its place of recovery, preparation of inquest and its identity as of Naj. But there is some question raised about the mode of recovery.
35. Further version of PW 6 is that, on request of the police both of them went to Meghalaya. There at Latambhai on that night they tried to find out the shop house of accused Sultan Uddin. At about 3 AM (night) Assam police with the help of Meghalaya police found out the house of accused Sultan Uddin at Latambhai. On query the accused stated that his brother accused Salim Uddin kept one big bag containing notes. He then showed that bag to the police who in their presence opened the bag and found on counts Rs 6, 88, 500/-notes of different denominations including Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-. Police seized the same and prepared seizure list there. Ext 7(1) and 7(2) are his signatures in the seizure list. Accused Sultan Uddin also put signatures. Ext 7(3) is the signature of the accused. Material Ext 2 is the said bag.
36. The PW 6 also deposed that accused Sultan Uddin in presence of witnesses told that accused Salim Uddin on 21/11/2011 night handed over the above money to him for keeping in custody and the same was taken as ransom amount from Tufail Ahmed, the father of Naj. Accused further stated that after 2/3 days accused Salim Uddin over telephone 19
informed him that, Naj was killed by them and the accused Salim Uddin would send some persons for collection of the money from him.
37. In the cross-examination for the accused Riaz, Najim, Shamim and Sultan Uddin it is denied that the PW 6 did not go up to Latambhai accompanying the police and also not present at the time of seizure in the house of accused Sultan Uddin at Latambhai. He also denied that signature of the accused was taken in the seizure list at Karimganj Rest House. Suggestion was similarly put that the money that was found owned by accused Sultan Uddin and the same was of his business money.
38. PW 7 is one Juber Jaman of village Jatkapan under Karimganj PS. According to his evidence on 25/12/2011 hearing about the accused Salim Uddin as brought from Bilonia border of Tripura he went to Karimganj PS to see the accused. There in the courtyard accused was found sitting. In his presence police asked the accused about the killing of Naj. The accused then stated that his friend Burhan Uddin betrayed him and for that he killed Burhan with a pistol and case was pending in the Badarpur PS. The accused also disclosed that the said pistol was also used for killing of Naj. The accused also disclosed that he made a plan to kidnap a person of rich family for collection of huge amount as ransom for becoming a leader of the locality. Plan was made in the month of November, 2011 and the accused Rajani was managed to help him in the kidnapping and as per the plan on 19/11/2011 he kidnapped Naj with the help of accused Rajani, Hifjur, Kamal, Mumin, and Rehan. The accused further disclosed that Naj was kept concealed in the house of accused Majnu at Monosangan and he handed over the unauthorized pistol to accused Hifjur and on that night when Naj 20
was caught hold by accused Munna, Kamal, Rehan, Majnu the accused Hifjur shot the pistol on the head of Naj. The accused further disclosed that he gave the order to accused Hifjur to bury the dead body.
39 PW 7 further deposed that the accused in his presence further disclosed that on 20/11/2011 the accused along with Kamal, Riaz (driver), Majnu, and others went to Meghalaya with an Indica car and from there over telephone demanded Rs. 50 Lacs from the father of Naj and that phone was done through accused Mumin. The accused also told that on 21/11/2011 he received Rs. 12 Lacs from the father of Naj out of which Rs. 10 Lacs was handed over to accused Sultan Uddin and after that he along with the above companions went to Guwahati and from there to Dimapur. The accused further disclosed that from Dimapur he along with accused Kamal went to Bilonia where accused Kamal used to work as a mason. The accused was having 2 Lacs out of which he paid Rs. 12/14 thousand to accused Rocky and from the rest he purchased some articles and the rest of Rs. 97,000/- was recovered by police from his bed. In the cross examination the witness stated that at the time of making statement by the accused there are many other people besides the police. Except denial suggestions there is nothing to impeach his trustworthiness.
40. PW 8 Matiur Rahman of village Sarapur under Badarpur PS an owner of computer training institute deposed that he knew accused Salim Uddin, Sultan Uddin, Rocky, Mumin, Hifjur, Kamal, Babul, Raju, by name and trace. On 23/1/2012 in the noon he went to Monosangan to meet with one Imam of a mosque. On the way he found gathering of many people along with police. He saw accused Babul Ali and Raju 21
were being taken by police on foot. Out of curiosity he went with the police. In his presence police interrogated accused Babul Ali and Raju. Accused Babul Ali told that on 19/11/2011 Naj was killed below tilla homestead of accused Majnu. The accused further informed that on 21//11/2011 at night accused Hifjur, Raju, Riaz, Abdul Karim, Minu Mian, Helal Uddin, Oli and he himself (Babul Ali) shifted the dead body of Naj and buried the same at Dumurgool. He further disclosed that at the time of burial accused Hifjur pulled off pant of Naj and subsequently during their bath in a pond the accused Hifjur concealed the same in the pond water.
41. The PW8 further deposed that knowing the above police at the instance of accused Babul Ali went to the pond. During search one blue coloured pant was recovered from inside the pond water. The knee portion of the pant was blood stained. Police seized the same in presence of witnesses vide Ext 8. Ext 8(1) is his signature as witness. Material Ext. 3 is the pant being identified as of deceased Naj. Accused Raju put his signature on the seizure list in his presence. Nothing could be brought in his cross examination to shake out his evidence.
42. PW 9 is Makbul Haque of village Sarapur. According to his evidence about one and half months of the alleged incident of kidnapping he could know that one of the accused was arrested by Badarpur police. He then went to the PS at about 10-30 AM and found gathering of many people inside the PS campus and found the accused Kamal Hussain there in the campus. In their presence during interrogation the accused told that on one Saturday night accused Rajani took Naj with bike and handed over Naj near reliance petrol pump to accused Salim Uddin, Rehan, Munna, Hifjur and him. 22
After that they took Naj with a car to Monosangan in the house of accused Majnu and there Naj was killed by pistol shot. He further told that Naj could identify all of them and as such accused Salim Uddin being raised with anger gave his pistol to accused Hifjur asking to kill Naj and accordingly accused Hifjur fired Naj. After that the dead body was left there under the custody of accused Hifjur. The accused further disclosed that he along with accused Selim Uddin came back to Chorgola and went to Mandihati on the following day. There at Mandihati they took ransom of Rs 12 Lacs from the father of Naj. At the time of taking ransom he himself along with accused Salim Uddin, Mumin, Riaz, Najim were present. The accused further disclosed that from the above amount of Rs. 12 Lacs an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs were handed over to Sultan Uddin. After that accused Salim Uddin and Kamal Uddin went to Gauhati and there from they went to Bilonia. He further told that accused Salim Uddin gave him Rs. 10,000/- at Bilonia and also gave some articles for his use.
43. It is seen that statement allegedly made by accused Salim Uddin before police in presence of PW 7 and statement as allegedly made by accused Kamal Hussain before the police in presence of PW 9 are corroborative with each other. According to the prosecution the above statements may be treated as extra judicial confessions that at least lead to the discovery of seized alleged ransom amount.
44. PW 10 is one Jalal Uddin of village Mokoi Bhanga. According to his evidence after few days of the recovery of dead body of Naj he came to know that accused Hifjur was apprehended and kept in the Karimganj PS. Knowing the same he went to the PS and waited till 9 PM. and found the O/C, Badarpur PS there along with accused Hifjur. 23
On the request of O/C, Badarpur PS he went to Monosangan also along with 2/3 other persons and other police personnel. They reached Monosangan at about 11 PM near a mosque by a vehicle. After that accused Hifjur took all of them on foot. A place named as Keroi from beneath a ‗cham‘ tree the accused Hifjur recovered one polythene bag from which one pistol, one small ammunition, one knife and another small pistol were recovered.
45. The PW 10 further deposed that after the recovery on query accused Hifjur told that he with the big pistol shot dead Naj. He further told that accused Salim Uddin loading the pistol handed over the same to him asking to kill Naj as Naj could identify all the accused persons. The accused further disclosed that accused Rajani handed over Naj to accused Salim Uddin, Kamal, Munna, and 2/3 others at Chorgola. Naj was taken by a Maruti car to Monosangan and kept there at the house of accused Majnu. Naj was killed beneath the tills land of accused Majnu. After that leaving him (Hifjur) accused Salim, Kamal, Munna, and others went for collection of ransom money from father of deceased Naj.
46. According to the further evidence of PW 10 the accused Hifjur further disclosed that he with the help of accused Abdul Karim, brother Raju and 2/3 others managed to shift the dead body at Haldi tilla where the dead body was buried.
47. The PW 10 further deposed that the O/C, Badarpur PS seized the pistols and ammunition there at the place of recovery vide Ext 9 in his presence. Ext. 9(1) is his signature. The seizure list was also signed by witness Tapader and accused Hifjur. Material Ext. 4 is the big pistol. 24
Material Ext 5 is small pistol, Material Ext. 6 is the ammunition, and Material Ext. 7 is the knife. The same were identified by the witness.
48. In his cross examination no contradiction on any material point or any material omission could be brought. The defence side merely denied his presence at the place of alleged recovery.
49. The PW 11 is one Abdul Rouf of Mokoi Bhanga. As per his evidence on request of the complainant, the father of deceased of Naj he on 2/12/2011 along with one Matab uddin and police personnel proceeded towards Bilonia to trace out accused Salim Uddin. They reached Bilonia at about 3-30/4 AM morning. There 2/3 police personnel of Bilonia PS accompanied them to search hotels of Bilonia. 8/10 numbers of hotel were searched but Salim Uddin was not found. After that police personnel could locate relevant mobile tower as Sector 3 Bilonia from where accused Salim Uddin made telephone contact. On 3/12/2011 the accused could not be traced out. On the following morning the police of Bilonia and the Assam police with civil dress concealing the real number of their vehicle started combing operation by door to door search. Having some information from one person they gherrowed one construction side in a ‗tilla‘ land where accused Selim Uddin was found in a labour camp as lying in a bed with his mobile phone in hand. During search one school bag containing bundles of notes of Rs 500/-denominations was recovered. One bundle was found with the seal of State Bank of India, Bhanga branch. Other bundle was found sealed less which being counted found to have contained Rs. 47,000/- plus. The notes were seized by the police there at the place of recovery vide Ext. 10 in presence of witnesses. Ext. 10(1) is the signature of PW 10.
25
50. The PW 11 further deposed that on query the accused told that out of ransom money he took Rs. 2 (two) lacs and out of that he spent 1 (one) Lac. His further evidence is that on that evening i..e.. on 4/12/2011 at about 7 PM they started towards Karimganj. On the way one telephone call was received by the said police officer Shri Dutta from Addl S.P., Karimganj. When the mobile was taken near to accused Selim Uddin for taking the accused then told the other accused Hifjur that everything was lost. Accused Salim Uddin also asked the other accused Hifjur to handover the gun.
51. He in the cross examination reiterated the presence of police personnel of Bilonia PS during the entire search operation and gave detail topography of the place of recovery. His entire positive evidence could not be shaken out by the defence side and no cogent reason could be shown to impeach his credibility. The defence suggestion is that the accused was not caught at Bilonia and nothing was recovered from his possession.
52. The PW 12 is one Pranjit Das of village Kamrangi under Badarpur P.S. According to him, he was present at the time of seizure of one Maruti 800 Car which was found lying by the side of the road. Exhibit- 11 is the seizure list. Exhibit- 11 (1) is his signature.
53. He was not cross examined in detail for accused Rajani and not at all cross examined for the others. That being so the evidence of seizure of Maruti Car remained as un-rebutted.
54. P.W. 13 is one Badrul Haque of Bonomali Road, Ward No. 14, Karimganj Town. He is also seen to be a seizure witness of his Tata Indica Car bearing registration no. AS-10-9838. According to him, his 26
son namely accused Riaz Uddin used to drive the same for hiring passengers. After one month of the death of Naj the vehicle was seized vide Exhibit- 12 from the custody of accused Riaz.
55. In the cross examination he stated that accused Riaz used to drive the vehicle within the locality of Karimganj District. Therefore, seizure of Indica Car is also remained un-rebutted and established.
56. Therefore, the evidence of seizure of both Maruti Car and Indica Car is established and proved without any doubt.
57. P.W. 14 is the SDJM(S), Karimganj namely- Shri Ratnadip Bhattacharjee, who recorded the statement of witnesses U/S. 164 Cr.P.C. Exhibit- 5 is the statement of witness Nazma Begum. Exhibit- 13 is the statement of witness Mariom Bibi. Exhibit- 14 is statement of Monowara Begum.
58. In the cross examination of PW 14 one major omission to the effect that on query of PW 2 accused Hifjur Rahman told her that they killed one boy of Bhanga area is proved. Similarly, omission with regard to the PW 3 is also proved to the effect that she did not state that accused Hifjur along with 4/5 others breaking the door of her house entered therein and took away accused Hussain Ahmed on the point of gun.
59. P.W. 15 is one Nizam Uddin of village Bundashil under Badarpur P.S. According to him, his house is situated just back side of the Badarpur P.S. On 25/11/11 he heard that police of Badarpur P.S. went to Monosangan on the clue that dead body of Naj was concealed there. Hearing the same he on that morning at about 11-30 A.M. along with his younger brother namely Abdul Kalam went to Monosangan 27
where he found gathering of villagers and police personnel. One lady namely Monowara Begum (accused) led the police and villagers to a place namely Keori where she went up the ‗tilla‘ land or followed her she pointed out a newly dug place. By this time, Circle Officer of Badarpur Circle arrived there. As per his order of the Circle Officer the place shown by the accused Monowara Begum was dug and dead body of Naj was recovered therefrom. His further evidence is that, in his presence inquest over the dead body was done by the Circle Officer. He being the near relative of the deceased went to Silchar SMCH for post mortem purpose. There at SMCH wearing apparels namely undergarments and ‗ganjee‘ was seized by police vide Exhibit- 15. Exhibit- 15 (1) is his signature as witness. Material Exhibit 8 is the seized wearing apparels.
60. He confirmed in the cross-examination that the dead body was in a decomposed position and he was present there at the time of recovery. In the cross examination the defence side made attempt to say that accused Monowara Begum did not led the police and public to the place of recovery and she adduced false evidence in this regard. Seizure list and Material Ext 8 are not categorically disputed in the cross examination. Therefore, recovery of dead body of Naj and its identity and identity of his wearing apparels can be said to have been established.
61. P.W. 16 is the Circle Officer Nirmal Kanti Debnath. According to him, on 15/11/2011 at about 11.30 A.M. he on police requisition went to Monosangan where in a ‗tilla‘ land a dead body was recovered in his presence which was kept buried. He conducted the inquest over the dead body which was found completely decomposed; dead body was identified as of Naj son of Tufail Ahmed. Exhibit- 6 is the inquest report. Exhibit- 6 (2) is his signature. 28
62. In the cross-examination he stated that as the dead body was completely decomposed no mark of injury could be noticed.
63. P.W. 17 is Dr. Y. N. Singh @ Sinha, an Asstt. Professor of Forensic Medicine, SMCH, Silchar. According to him on 25/11/2011 he along with colleague Professor Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi conducted Post Mortem Examination of the dead body of Naj at SMCH. His material findings are as follows:-
1. Whole body was covered with sands and soils. 2. Body was decomposed, rigor mortis passed off. 3. Injury - (i) Bullet entry wounds, 1 cm x 1 cm in diameter with inverted lacerated margin and with abraded collar present over posterior and lower part of left parietal region of skull and present 1.8 cm above the upper margin of pinna of left ear. Decomposed brain matter coming out through wound. The underline parietal bone also shows same size entry wound with beveled margin on inner table of skull. Blood clothes firmly adherent in the wound. The bullet passed through the maninges‘ and brain transversely from left to right and passed out through an wound on the right parietal bone and right parietal region of scalp marked as Exit wound of bullet numbered. (ii) With bevelling on outer table of right parietal bone with comminuted fracture around the exit. The exit wound on scalp measures 1.2 cm x 1 cm and right parietal scalp 4 cms above the upper margin of pinna of right ear. The margin lacerated and evested. Brain and maninges protruded through the wound. (iii) Dorsum of right hand bruised on mid part, 6 x 5 cm in size. On dissection – extra vacation of blood found (suggest defence wound).
29
64. In their opinion instantaneous death resulted from the injury sustained on the head. All injuries were ante-mortem. Injury no. (iii) caused by blunt impact. Injury no. (i) & (ii) were the entry and exit wounds of bullet respectively fired from rifled (fire arm weapon) and homicidal in nature. Approximate time since death was 5 to 6 days. Exhibit- 16 is their report. Exhibit – 16 (1) is his signature. Exhibit- 16 (2) is the signature of Dr. Prof. B.C. Roy Medhi.
65. P.W. 18 is one Mehabub Hussain Laskar, Habildar of 6 AP Battalion, Kathal Silchar. According to him on 07/02/2012 he as an armorer / Habildar examined arms namely (1) one 7.65 MM Pistol with magazine, (2) One country made air gun designed of pistol and (3) one 7.65 MM cartridge. All the three items were marked as Ext. a, b & c respectively. The same were sent by the S.P., Karimganj in connection with Badarpur P.S. Case No. 181/2011 Result of examination— Exhibit- A is a fire arm found serviceable at the time of examination. Exhibit- B is not a fire arm. It is an air gun, design of pistol. Exhibit C is 7.65 MM live cartridge. Material Exhibit 4 is the said air gun. Material Exhibits 5 is the above pistol, and Material Exhibit 6 is the said cartridge .Ext. 17 is his report. Ext. 18 is the forwarding letter of the report with signature of their commandant. He to the court stated that since last 6 years he had been working as an expert and took training at Forensic Laboratory, Kahilipara (Guwahati) in Balastic Department.
66. PW 19 is Sri Nabendu Das, an S/I of police, the then 2nd officer of Badarpur PS. According to his evidence he on receipt of information from Addl. SP gave GD Entry bearing no. 682 dated 25/11/11 and informed Circle Officer, Badarpur to go to Monosangan. He with his staff and battalion party also went to Monosangan at about 30
11-30 a.m. and found gathering of about 1 / 1 ½ thousand peoples who expressed about likelihood of getting dead-body of victim Naj. After that he keeping his vehicle near a Mocam of Monosangan started to move on foot. By this time they got information that burial place of victim Naj had already been shown by one Monowara Begum (accused). They dug the place of burial over a ‗tilla‘ land in presence of witnesses and Circle Officer. The dead-body was lifted which was found almost decomposed. The dead–body was identified by one Kamrul Islam and Nijam Uddin as of victim Naj. Circle Officer conducted the inquest. Further evidence is that the I/O recorded statement of witnesses and drew sketch map of the scene of recovery. Ext.19 is the sketch map. The dead-body was taken to SMCH for post mortem. Wearing garments of the victim was seized by him vide Ext.15. He recorded statement of one Abu Sahid Md. Jakir Hussain.
67. PW 20 is Samsul Hoque, an ASI of police. According to him on 04/12/2011 while he was working as ASI of police at Badarpur PS, the then O/C, the I/O of this case was out of station in connection with investigation of this case. The then 2nd officer i.e. the PW 19 was the in-charge of the PS. On that day at about 6-35 p.m. he was told by said Nabendu Das that a telephone call was received from the I/O to the effect that accused Salim Uddin had been apprehended at Bilonia. It is further told that the accused disclosed that his brother namely accused Sultan Uddin had been given Rs. 7,00,000/- by the accused (Salim Uddin). It was further informed that the accused further disclosed that out of ransom amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- as collected from the complainant (PW1) he only kept Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- was given in the custody of his brother Sultan Uddin at Ladrimbai.
31
68. His further evidence is that the O/C, Khirod Baiswa (I/O) instructed him over telephone to apprehend Sultan Uddin. The above information was noted vide GD Entry bearing no. 114 dated 04/12/2011. On receipt of the instruction he proceeded towards Bhanga for engaging some source for detection of accused Sultan Uddin. There at Bhanga he took one Kamrul Hoque and one Hobibul Hoque to guide him. After that he along with the above two persons and six battalion and other police constable reached Ladrimbai at about 3-40 a.m. There he sought help from Ladrimbai Police Outpost. After that they visited the rented house of accused Sultan Uddin and found him inside the room.
69. His further evidence is that on query the accused first did not disclose anything. Then it could be learn that the accused had a mobile shop in the market adjacent to the main road. Then they started to search the mobile shop. They exerted pressure and out of pressure the accused disclosed that his brother Salim Uddin handed over Rs. 7,00,000/-. After that all of them went to the rented house of the accused. The accused (Sultan Uddin) then gave the said amount that was kept in a school bag. The amount was counted. M.Ext.2 is the said school bag where the money was kept. The currency notes were in bundles of Rs. 1,000/- denomination and also of Rs. 500/- denomination. Five bundles of Rs. 1,000/-. The total amount was found as Rs. 6,88,500/-. He gave the details about the number of notes found in each of the bundles. Seizure list was prepared there at the rented room of the accused and the accused put signature thereon. Witnesses namely Kamrul Islam and Hobibul Hoque also put signature in the seizure list. Ext.7 is the seizure list. His further evidence is that he recorded statement of the said seizure witnesses and also note down in the case diary about the disclosure of accused Sultan Uddin to the effect that Salim Uddin over telephone informed Sultan Uddin that out of the 32
ransom amount, an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- would be kept in his (Sultan Uddin) custody and the same shall be handed over to the person who would be sent by accused Salim Uddin. He also deposed that he handed over the accused (Sultan Uddin) with the seized materials to the Karimganj PS with information to the O/C, Badarpur PS (I/O, Khirod Baishya).
70. PW 21 is the I/O Khirod Baishya, the then O/C of Badarpur PS. According to his evidence on 20/11/2011 he received the written ejahar the Ext 1 and registered it as Badarpur PS Case No 181/2011 U/S 365 IPC. Ext 20 is the sketch map of the locality of the complainant. On that day at about 5 PM he receiving information from Additional S.P., Karimganj went to Reliance Petrol Pump near Chorgola where one motor cycle was found lying. The accused Rajani Talukder was also found there. The motor cycle was lying on the road side ditch in between Reliance Petrol Pump and Chorgola bazar. On being shown by Rajani he seized the same vide Ext 2. During such interrogation the accused disclosed that as per previous conspiracy accused Selim Uddin called him at Chorgola line hotel to pay Rs. 2 Lacs in case Naj, the victim, was brought to Chorgola near reliance petrol pump. As per commitment on 19/11/2011 at about 12/1 PM accused Salim Uddin called him to meet in a line hotel near the reliance petrol pump. Accordingly he (Rajani) went there and received Rs 1,500/- and one ‗corex‘ bottle from accused Selim Uddin. It is further disclosed that, on the same evening he called the victim victim Naj and went with the victim to Badarpur where in a line hotel he and victim consumed alcohol. After that both of them while returning towards Bhanga with their motor cycle on the way at Mokoi- Bhanga he gave the corex bottle to the victim. He further disclosed that the corex syrup was mixed with high power sleeping substance. The victim Naj after consumption of syrup went towards Chorgola and at 33
Chorgola Naj became unconscious and fell down from the motor cycle near reliance petrol pump. After that on call accused Salim Uddin came there with one blue coloured Maruti car along with two unknown persons. The unknown persons took Naj towards Bhanga side with the car. He further disclosed that at that time suddenly mobile phone of Naj rang up and accused Salim took away the mobile set and switched off the same. Accused Salim Uddin made a telephonic call to one Munna and started to proceed towards Bhanga via Kaliganj by his own motor cycle.
71. The I/O further deposed that he drew sketch map of the place of recovery of motor cycle. Ext 1 is the sketch map. The complainant put signature in the seizure list of the motor cycle as witness. Ext 2(2) is the signature of complainant- PW 1 (since deceased) and accused Rajani also put thumb impression in the seizure list. The I/O recorded statement of the seizure witnesses. Accused Rajani was brought to Karimganj PS and from where both he (I/O) and Rajani at about 8-45 PM proceeded towards Kaliganj to trace out accused Munna, Selim and Rehan. At about 10-30 PM they reached Monosangan near a mosque and engaged source for tracing out victim, accused Munna and other culprits. His further evidence is that he received information from source that accused Munna was at Dimapur. After that he returned to Badarpur PS. O/C of Karimganj PS was with him. On that night he received information that accused Rehan Uddin was at his house at Jabainpur under Karimganj PS. On that night at about 1-30 AM he went to Jabainpur accompanied by O/C, karimganj, Addl. S.P.,CRPF staff and others and searched the house of Rehan Uddin who was not found. After that they went to Kankalash to search the house of accused Selim Uddin. Selim Uddin was not found available in his house. His brother Numan uddin was apprehended. House of Babu Khan was also searched. On the late night 34
Babu Khan, Fujail Ahmed and Numan Uddin was apprehended and brought to Badarpur PS on suspicion. During interrogation Numan Uddin disclosed that on 19/11/2011 at about 10-30 PM his elder brother accused Selim Uddin came to his house with one motor cycle and left away. Numan Uddin also stated that their other brother Sultan Uddin had a mobile shop at Latambhai, Meghalaya. It was further disclosed that accused Selim Uddin since involvement with one car lifting and other murder case of one Burhan Uddin had been residing at Eklabari in in- laws house.
72. The further evidence of I/O is that during interrogation said Babu Khan disclosed that about 10/15 days back accused Rajani informed him (Rajani) that Naj would be kidnapped for ransom by accused Selim Uddin. Babu Khan also stated that accused Rajani requested him to inform the father of victim Naj about the plan of kidnapping. I/O also deposed that Rajani was arrested on 21/11/2011 at about 8-30 PM. Accused was taken to police custody for four days from the Court.
73. I/O further deposed that during investigation he seized the maruti car which being found abandoned at Nirala inside bushes vide Ext 11. On 22/11/2011 at about 10-30 PM complainant Tufail Ahmed submitted one additional written statement to the effect that as per request of the culprits he gave an amount of Rs 12 Lacs as ransom at Mandihati, Meghalaya but Naj was not handed over to him. Then GD entry was made bearing Badarpur PS GD entry No 595 dated 22/11/2011. Ext 22 is the extract copy of GD entry.
74. His further evidence is that on 23/11/2011 at about 2-30 PM he received telephonic information to the effect that one male youth was 35
kidnapped by one Hifjur, son of Abdul Karim and associates and might have been concealed in the bushy jungle of Monosangan. Immediately he along with Addl. S.P., C.I., Badarpur, Dog squad, Battalion and other staff conducted search operation at village Monosangan but found no trace of the victim or any other accused. On 24/11/2011 he received information from source that some clue was found in respect of kidnapping and concealment of Naj by accused Hifjur, Abdul Karim, Majnu, Raju and Riju. On receipt of such information he again went to Monosangan and conducted search operation in the houses of above culprits/suspects but they were not found. One Najima Begum and Moriom Bibi, are respectively the wife and mother of accused Hifjur and Majnu were found in their respective houses.
75. His further evidence is that on interrogation said Najima Begum (PW 2) disclosed that on 19/11/2011 at night her husband Hifjur and one Salim and other 2/3 unknown persons kidnapped one male person and took shelter in the house of one majnu and killed one male youth and concealed the dead body at Dumurgool side but she could not say the actual location of concealing. Said Moriom Bibi (PW 3) disclosed that on 19/11/2011 at about 10/11 PM accused Hifjur Rahman and two other unknown associates and also with prime accused Selim brought one male youth with covered face being tied with rope on the back side in an unconscious position to the house of her son Majnu. She further disclosed that she seeing the same raised with anger asked accused Hifjur for release of the person otherwise she would report to his father Abdul Karim. After that she went to the father of Hifjur and reported the matter. On her way back near to her house she heard sound of gunshot and on her return found accused Hifjur near to her house. She asked Hifjur as to why he killed the unknown person and she would inform the matter to police and villagers. Hifjur then threatened to spoil 36
her life in case of discloser. After that she returned back to her house and found her son (accused Majnu) was not there. She further stated that on 21/11/2011 at night the dead body of said person was concealed at Dumurgool area which she could know from Monowara Begum (accused) and dead body was concealed by accused Hifjur, Abdul Karim, Riju, Raju, Helal and others .
76. His further evidence is that on interrogation to Monowara Begum it was surfaced that accused Hifjur and Salim killed a person and her husband merely concealed the dead body at Dumurgool side with accused Hifjur, Riju, Helal, Oli Uddin (absconder) and one/two other unknown. The I/O also deposed that at that time there were huge crowed in the locality who was very excited. Therefore, for safety and security he took the aforesaid three females to Badarpur PS and kept them in a safe custody.
77. It is also deposed that by this time he received information to the effect that accused Salim Uddin was at Ladrimbai, Meghalaya. Addl. S.P. and D.I.G. of Police instructed him to proceed to Meghalaya. After that on 24/11/2011 at 9 PM he proceeded to Meghalaya along with ASI R. U. Borbhuiya and 6 AP Battalion staff and reached near Ladrimbai and made search in the rented house where the accused used to stay but not found. He gave information to Ladrimbai police out post to the effect that in case Salim Uddin was found shall be arrested and forwarded. He then returned back. On 25/11/2011 he found DIG was sitting in the Badarpur PS. On the previous date curfew was promulgated in Badarpur area. He could know from the DIG that dead body of Naj was recovered at Dumurgool area under the guidance of SI of Police N. Das who conducted search operation vide GD entry No 682 dated 25/11/2011.
37
78. After that he (PW 21) went to Monosangan area with staff and found gathering of people with very excitement. There he also found Addl. S.P. and accused Monowara Begum. She was gharrowed by local people. He took her in police custody for her safety and recorded her statement and took her to Karimganj and again he came back to Monosangan on that night and could learn that accused Abdul Karim, Riju, Hifjur as absconding. During investigation above three females were forwarded to the Magistrate for recording statement U/S 164 Cr.P.C. On 30/11/2011 accused Monowara Begum was arrested.
79. PW 21 further deposed that on 2/12/2011 at about 3 PM Addl. S.P. over telephone informed him about phone bearing No 9612969568 as could be traced out and its tower location was at Bilonia under Tripura State. The phone No was suspected as of accused Salim Uddin. Accordingly SI J. Dutta, ASI Borbhuiya and UBC Dipok Hazarikha were asked to report Addl. S.P., Karimganj. Before their leaving GD entry was made bearing No 36 dated 2/12/ 2011.
80. On 4/12/2011 at about 5-10 AM information was received with effect that accused Hifjur was loitering near Karimganj Railway station. He then went there and apprehended Hifjur. On interrogation accused Hifjur stated that accused Rajani handed over Naj in an unconscious condition near Reliance petrol pump. He further disclosed that when Naj gaining sense became uncontrolled he as per instruction of Salim shot at Naj. After that Salim left the dead body with a direction to him (Hifjur) for disposal of the body and accordingly he buried the dead body with the help of other accused. The accused was arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj who allowed the prayer of police custody for 72 hours. On the same date at about 4-40 PM information was received that accused Salim Uddin was 38
arrested at Bilonia by S/I J. Dutta and Rs 97,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused. Further information was received that an unauthorized pistol was in possession of accused Hifjur Rahman and rest ransom amount was lying in the custody of accused Sultan uddin. On receipt of such information accused Hifjur was further interrogated. S/I H. Haque was deputed for search and recovery of rest amount of ransom from accused Sultan Uddin at Ladrimbai.
81. His further evidence is that after the apprehension of accused Salim Uddin there had been a telephonic talk in between accused Hifjur and Salim Uddin in his presence. After that accused Hifjur disclosed that the arm which was used for killing Naj was in his possession which he concealed near the house of Moina Mian in a ‗tilla‘ land. On receipt of such information he along with S.P., Addl. S.P., C.I., and two other public and also accused Hifjur went to Monosangan area. It was then about 12-30 AM of 5/12/2011. There near the homestead of Moina Mian accused showed the concealed one factory made pistol, one live cartridge, one air gun and one uncommon knife kept hidden inside a big size polythene packet on the base of one Cham tree. The same were seized vide Ext 9 and brought to Karimganj PS. On the following morning at about 5-15 AM accused Salim Uddin was brought to Karimganj PS by SI J. Dutta (PW 22) with seizure list for an amount of Rs 97,000/-that was allegedly recovered from the accused.
82. PW 21 further deposed that on 5/12/2011 accused Sultan Uddin was brought to Karimganj PS along with seized money of Rs. 6,88,500/-. On 6/12/2011 mobile set of victim Naj was recovered from the workshop cum residence of Rajani which was identified by PW 1 and seized vide Ext 4. The same was recovered on the basis of information of accused Rajani. There was no Sim card inside the mobile 39
set. On 6/12/2011 accused Hussain Ahmed was apprehended and arrested. On 7/12/2011 post mortem report was collected. As per order dated 9/12/2011 of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, money as recovered was deposited to treasury. On 17/12/2011 accused Kamal Hussain was apprehended and subsequently arrested. On 20/12 /2012 accused Nejam and Riaz Uddin were apprehended. On the basis of information received from Salim Uddin and Kamal Hussain an Indica Car that was allegedly used by accused Salim Uddin and Kamal Hussain for collecting ransom money was seized from the possession of accused Riaz Uddin vide Ext 12. On 21/12/2011 accused Abdul Munim was apprehended from Bhanga bus stand where the accused was found gharrowed by local people. During interrogation the accused disclosed that he knew Nagamese and also Assamese language and he talked with PW 1 over phone with Nagamese language. It was learnt from interrogation of accused Salim Uddin that he purchased the arms and ammunition from accused Shamim Ahmed. Knowing the same the I/O apprehended Shamim Ahmed on 24/12/2011.
83. The I/O further deposed that during investigation he recorded extra-judicial confession of accused Salim Uddin in presence of one Juber Jaman (PW 7), one Abdul Basit and many others in the courtyard of Karimganj PS. Extra- judicial confession of Kamal Hussain was recorded in the courtyard of Badarpur PS in presence of one Foijul Ahmed, Mahabul Haque (PW 9) and many others. From the statement of accused Salim Uddin arms and further amount of ransom and the seized Indica Car could be recovered. On 17/1/2012 accused Babul Mian was apprehended at Bhogirkhola under Nilambazar PS. The accused disclosed that after concealment of dead body of Naj wearing apparels of the deceased along with spade were concealed in a pond. On 20/1/2012 accused Raju Ahmed (brother of accused Hifjur) was arrested. On the 40
basis of information collected from accused Raju Ahmed and Babul Mian the I/O went to Monosangan area with them. They took the I/O and others near the pond of one Abdul Rouf. As per information wearing apperals of deceased Naj was recovered from inside the pond water. Same was seized vide Ext 8. It is also deposed that during further investigation the I/O collected armorer report from Commandant 6 AP Battalion. Ext 17 and 18 are the said reports. He obtained prosecution sanction against accused Hifjur, Selim, Kamal, Rajani, Hussain Ahmed, Rehan Uddin, Hujur Ahmed @ Munna and Shamim Ahmed. Ext 23 is a prayer for sanction. Ext 24 is the prosecution sanction. Seven Nos. of accused found absconding. Ext 25 is the charge-sheet.
84. PW 22 Jyotirmoy Dutta is the then SI of Police under Badarpur PS. According to his evidence on 2/12/2011 at about 3 PM Addl S P, Karimganj over telephone informed O/C, Badarpur P/S (PW 21) that accused Salim Uddin was hidden somewhere in Tripura. He being entrusted to proceed to Tripura gave a GD entry v ide Badarpur PS GD enrtry No 36 dated 2/12/2011. During discussion with Addl. S.P. he could learn the tower location of mobile phone bearing no 9612969568 could be detected at Bilonia under Tripura State and suspected to be of accused Salim Uddin. Accordingly he proceeded at about 4-30 PM along with A B Borbhuiya, Dipok Hazarikha and two local persons, namely, Abdul Rouf (PW 11) and Matab uddin (PW 8) along with arm personnels and reached Bilonia at 4-30 PM. There they reported the matter to Bilonia PS where GD entry was made bearing No 77 dated 3/12/2011. After that with the help of police constable of Bilonia PS they started to search local hotels and lodges to trace out the accused, contacted Airtel counter for locating the tower. After that they visited BSF camp of Amzadnagar. BSF Commandant with his staff also helped to search out the accused. On the following morning at about 9-30 AM 41
he discussed the matter with Addl. S.P., Karimganj and could learn the tower location. The O/C of Bilonia PS namely S/I Jhunu Lal Das was accordingly informed who provided him one S/I and one ASI of police to help in the search operation. Then at about 10-30 a.m. as per information so collected all of them visited an area of NIBC construction but found no trace of the accused. After that they visited adjacent area named as Uttar Bharatchandrapur where one new construction work was in progress. During search in a school where construction was going on they found sheds of labourers. In one shed accused Salim Uddin was found lying in a room. Seeing them the accused tried to fled away but failed. He was apprehended. On interrogation the accused informed that one 19/11/11 at about 9-30/ 10-30 p.m. accused Rajani with deceased Naj arrived at Chargola Reliance Petrol Pump near line hotel. Naj was unconscious because of consumption of sleeping substance. It is further disclosed that accused Salim, Rehan, Hifjur and Kamal with a Maruti 800 car brought Naj to Monosangan in the house of accused Mojnu alias Hussain Ahmed, where they stayed for about 3/4 hours. After that Naj when become beyond controlled accused Hifjur taking a gun from accused Salim shoot Naj. Thereafter Salim left at 9-00 a.m. with accused Kamal. After that both Kamal and Salim left Karimganj for Mandihati, Meghalay. On 21/11/11 they demanded Rs. 50,00,000/- as ransom from the PW 1 for release of Naj. Thereafter Tofail Ahmed agreed to give Rs. 12,00,000/-. Accordingly on the night of 22/11/11 Rs. 12,00,000/- was received by accused Salim Uddin from the father of Naj at Mandihati. Out of Rs. 12,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/- was kept by the accused for his personal expenditure and remaining amount was deposited to his elder brother Sultan Uddin.
42
85. The accused further disclosed that out of Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 97,000/- was in his possession and kept in the room. One unauthorized factory made gun, one round cartridge, one air gun and one knife kept with accused Hifjur Rahman. Rs. 1,03,000/- had already been spent by him to purchase clothes, paying vehicle fare and for payment of Rs. 20,000/- to accused Kamal Uddin.
86. The accused Salim Uddin then shown the bag containing Rs. 97,000/-. The same was seized in presence of witnesses. The accused also gave one mobile set having two sims including the sim no. 9612969568. The money and the mobile set were seized vide Ext. 10. M.Ext. 9 is the said mobile set identified by PW 22. Accused Salim Uddin also put signature in the seizure list.
87. The further version of the PW 22 is that he drew sketch of the place of recovery. M.Ext.10 is the school bag from which money was found. The same could be identified by him in the court. After the seizure the I/O informed the matter to the main I/O, the O/C Badarpur PS and Addl. SP, Karimganj and left the place of recovery at about 4-10 p.m. On the way he could know over telephone that accused Hifjur was in the police station. Then he informed the O/C, Badarpur PS that accused Salim Uddin stated about gun. During such conversation it could be learn that accused Hifjur first denied about the possession of the gun and arms. After that on the way from Bilonia to Karimganj at about 5-10 p.m. the present I/O, as per telephonic direction of the PW 21 gave the mobile set to Salim for talking with accused Hifjur. Then accused Salim Uddin asked accused Hifjur to hand over the gun with information that it had already been disclosed that rest ransom amount was kept in the possession of accused Sultan Uddin. Statement of the accused was recorded at Bilonia u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. After 43
reaching at Karimganj the present I/O handed over the accused along with seized materials and Supplementary Case Diary (SCD) to the PW 21.
88. The PW 22 in response to the defence denial suggestions put in the cross examination strongly asserted that he visited Bilonia wherefrom accused Salim Uddin was apprehended along with seized money, and also that the accused on the way to Karimganj made statement to led the discovery of arms. It is seen that the PW 22 in his examination- in- chief stated that on the way to Bilonia they reached at Kailashahar where he closed the SCD and wherefrom at about 12-45 AM again started to Bilonia and reached at 4-30 AM.
89. The PW 22 elucidate the entire happenings giving detailed day to day accounts during his stay at Bilonia in search of the accused .It clearly reveals that except the above point of visiting of Kailashahar the defence failed to demolish the substance of his evidence. His evidence is further found to be corroborative with the evidence of PW 11 who deposed to have accompanied him. No question is found to have been put by the defence side on the point of visiting of Kailashahar to the PW 11. So, it appears that this point is not at all a material one to shake out the evidence of PW 22. However, it is necessary to mention here that Kailashahar directly does not fall on the way from Karimganj to Bilonia, but it takes about two hours journey to go and come back from Kailashahar to the National high way following ‗U‘ pattern road.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
90. Relying on the above evidence learned counsel for the prosecution has mainly submitted on the following points – 44
1. That there is no dispute about the discovery of dead body of Naj in a decomposed manner from a ‗tilla‘ land of Monosangan area where accused Hifjur, Raju, Hussain Ahmed and some others used to reside. The area is a thinly populated having jungles. 2. That post mortem report reveals the death was due to ante mortem bullet injury. 3. Wearing apparels of Naj was recovered from inside a pond in the locality of Monosangan being led by accused Babul Ali accompanied by Raju; 4. Arms and ammunition were also recovered by the police on the basis of information gathered from accused Salim Uddin and being led by accused Hifjur; 5. Accused Salim Uddin although stated himself an elected Panchayet member but his apprehension at Bilonia in a labour camp is a strong circumstance goes against him. 6. The accused Salim Uddin was found as labour having a huge amount of Rs. 97,000/- at Bilonia in a labour shed also a circumstance goes against him ; 7. Information that gathered from the accused Salim Uddin led the discovery of Rs. 6,88,500/- from his elder brother accused Sultan Uddin from Ladrimbai, Meghalaya. 8. Apprehension of accused Salim Uddin was based on information of the telephone number of the accused and its tower location. The mobile set having two Sims was also seized from the accused. 9. Maruti Car that was allegedly used for kidnapping of the victim Naj was recovered as abandoned in a lonely place ; 10. Indica Car allegedly used by the accused persons during collection of ransom amount at Meghalaya was also 45
recovered from the possession of accused Riaz Uddin and seizure thereof is not disputed. 11. Mobile set of victim Naj was recovered from the residence-cum-workshop of accused Rajani Talukder on the basis of information received from the accused Rajani himself by the I/O ; 12. Seized pistol was found to be a fire arm in a serviceable condition and the ammunition was found as live; 13. All the seizure lists having exhibited were duly proved by the respective witnesses and the I/O, 14. Material Exhibits such as seized two Nos of mobile sets one being identified as of deceased Naj and the other is of accused Salim Uddin, School bag, arms and ammunition, wearing apparels (pant) of deceased Naj deposed to have been removed at the time of burial etc., also enhance the weightage of the testimony of prosecution witnesses. 15. Statement of accused persons leading to the discovery of arms and ammunition should be accepted as a strong piece of evidence indicating guilt of accused persons and that too, the statements so deposed to have been made before the I/O in presence of witness by accused Salim Uddin instructing accused Hifjur to hand over gun can also be treated as joint possession of arms and ammunition of both the accused persons.
16. On the following day of missing of victim Naj and during his search, accused Rajani gave statement, in pursuance of which motor cycle could be recovered. 46
Therefore, according to prosecution his entire statements as made before the villagers and the complainant should be treated as an extra-judicial confession on the strength of which the investigation proceeded. 17. Statement of accused Salim Uddin, Kamal Hussain and Hifjur Rahman made before the police in presence of witnesses including PW 7, 9 and 10 are corroborative with each other and also with extra-judicial confession made by accused Rajani Talukder with respect to the planning of kidnapping. Therefore, according to prosecution this part of the evidence cannot be completely excluded and their evidence being consistent and corroborative is very much relevant as conduct within the scope of Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
91. Therefore, according to prosecution all the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Naj for ransom and to give shape of this criminal conspiracy a prior cold blooded plan was made and organized mainly by accused Salim Uddin. In pursuance of the plan accused Rajani Talukder, having intimacy with Naj managed to hand over Naj to accused Salim Uddin and others. Naj was taken to Monosangan on the night of 19/11/2011 near the house of accused Hussain Ahmed (Majnu), where Naj was brutally killed by gun-shot without having any mitigating circumstances. Thereafter as per the plan accused Salim Uddin left the dead body in the custody of accused Hifjur for its disposal. Salim Uddin and some others even knowing the murder of Naj started demanding ransom for an amount of Rs 50,00,000/- from the father of Naj ( complainant) with an assurance to hand over Naj in a good condition in Maghalaya. But after continuous bargaining the amount was reduced to Rs 12,00,000/- and extorted at Mandihati, 47
Meghalaya near to which accused Sultan used to reside for business. In the above context it is contended that all the accused persons having common intention accomplished their plan of kidnapping for extortion and took their respective roles even without all the accused persons being physically present in each and every scene of the occurrence of kidnapping, extortion, and killing and burial of the dead body of Naj. It is also submitted that arms which was used for killing of Naj was unauthorized. So according to prosecution each and every point indicating the offence has been completely established by the evidence of reliable witnesses and the same completed the chain of circumstances indicating the guilt of each and every accused in respect of the respective charges. The chain could not be broken out by the defence in any way.
92. It has been pointed out that on 20/11/2011 as the accused persons, especially named in the charge, in furtherance of their common intention, started making demand of Rs 50,00,000/-, the offence falls U/S 387/34 IPC and as on 21/11/2011 actually an amount of Rs 12,00,000/- was extorted at Meghalaya, the offence being completed also falls U/S 386/34 IPC and merely non-mentioning of the same in the charge form cannot cause any prejudice to the accused persons as the contents of charge also discloses above facts clearly, in as much as defence side on all the materials of the charge fully cross examined the witnesses.
93. All the learned defence counsel for their respective accused persons made a general submission stating that accused persons were not involved in the alleged offence of kidnapping, murder, extortion, and the complainant falsely implicated the accused persons specially out of political enmity with accused Salim Uddin, and the prosecution case is based on the evidence of stock witnesses which cannot be relied upon. 48
94. Learned counsel Mr. R. Roy strongly submitted that there is no evidence at all as against accused Shamim Ahmed to bring home the offence guilty U/S 27(3) Arms Act. It is submitted for accused Riaz Uddin that evidence regarding recovery of Indica Car does not necessarily points out the guilt of the accused with the alleged offences. For accused Nizam Uddin it is submitted that there is no reliable evidence against him found in the record. For accused Sultan Uddin it has been strongly submitted that mere recovery of alleged ransom amount, in the absence of any overt act with the alleged offences cannot be inferred about his involvement with the alleged crimes, in as much as money so recovered claimed to be of his own business money and the same could not be cogently proved as that of the complainant. It is further submitted that accused Sultan Uddin was being at the material time at his business place at Ladrimbai, Meghalaya he had got rare chance to be an accomplice to share a common intention with any other in the commission of alleged crimes. However, according to him at best Section 411 IPC can be attracted for accused Sultan Uddin.
95. Learned defence counsel Mr. D. Chakrabarty submitted that out of political enmity the complainant not only entangled the accused Salim Uddin but also entangled others. His special submission is that even if it is believed that accused Hifjur Rahman at the instruction of accused Salim Uddin shoot at Naj, the alleged act of shooting does not attract the ingredients of murder and at best it can attract Section 304 IPC, in as much as according to him, there might be a motive of extortion but not of killing and the alleged killing might have been caused under compulsion due to fear of disclosure of their identity. The same act if believed to have been committed, the same can be said to have been done only without any premeditate intention and under 49
mitigating circumstances. As regards accused Mumin Uddin it is submitted that there is no cogent reliable piece of evidence to rope the accused with the alleged crime and the evidence of recognition by voice is not at all strong enough in the absence of any scientific technical evidence, and his mere stay at Meghalaya does not necessarily point out the involvement in the alleged crimes. Regarding accused Kamal Hussain and Raju Ahmed it is submitted that there is no reliable evidence against them.
96. Mr. Mihir Debnath, learned State Defence Counsel, has submitted that the defence case is of total denial. That statement as allegedly made by accused Rajani cannot be used against the others. Moreover, according to him, the FIR (Ext.1) although seen to have been lodged after interaction with Rajani and also after receipt of information from him about the motor cycle, but non-mentioning of name of any other accused in the FIR by the complainant give rise to reasonable doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the complainant about the alleged disclosure of facts by way of extra-judicial confession by accused Rajani. Further, it has been submitted that second statement (Ext-3) also does not disclose the name of any of the accused persons which also gave rise to reasonable doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the complainant. It is further submitted that alleged recovery of mobile set from the residence-cum-shop of accused Rajani is not believable, in as much as the owner of the house/shop is not examined as a witness. It is further submitted that Assam Police has got no jurisdiction to conduct any search operation at Meghalaya or at Tripura as alleged to have been done.
97. Ld. defence counsel for all the accused persons submitted in chorus that the prosecution evidence are full of omissions which also 50
give rise to a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the testimonies. It is also similarly submitted that the statement of accused made before the police cannot be taken into consideration, in as much as the same might have been made under threat and coercion and also not admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
98. Having due regard to the above I have gone through the evidence on the record, scrutinized and scanned each and every piece of evidence carefully.
99. During such scrutiny it clearly appears that the clue of investigation exposed only after the apprehension of accused Rajani Talukder and first recovery of the motor cycle of the deceased Naj from a lonely place. The evidence strongly tends to suggest that the motor cycle that was recovered vide Ext.2 was especially within the knowledge of accused Rajani. Evidence of PW 1, 4 & 5 are found to be corroborative with regard to the evidence of last seen of Rajani with deceased Naj on the night of alleged kidnapping. The evidence of both PW 4 and 5, who happened to see Naj with accused Rajani with their motor cycles at different places, could not be shaken out and nothing contrary could be brought in their cross examination to impeach their evidence.
100. The evidence of PW 6 and 15 about the recovery of dead body of Naj on 25/11/2011 in presence of Magistrate (PW 16) and police officer (PW 19) being corroborative with each other, I find no ground to disbelieve their testimonies in the absence of any contrary in cross- examinations. Here, there is evidence that the burial place of dead body was shown by accused Monowara Begum. Police first treating her 51
witness caused her statement to be recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.14 is her statement recorded on oath.
101. Evidence of PW 22, the I/O, with regard to the apprehension of accused Salim Uddin on 4/12/2011 at Bilonia and seizure of Rs 97,000/- with Sim cards being corroborated by PW 11 is found to be reliable for reasons discussed earlier and also in the absence of any other cogent probabilities.
102. Evidence of PW 11 and 22 clearly show that the information gathered from the mouth of accused Salim Uddin led to the discovery of arms and ammunition. Therefore, their evidence with regard to the arranged telephonic conversation of accused Salim Uddin with accused Hifjur in presence of the above two witnesses asking Hifjur to hand over gun is found to be reliable, as arms were recovered on the same night. The recovery of huge money, telephone Sims with mobile set and apprehension of Salim Uddin at Bilonia is a strong circumstance to chain up the accused with the alleged offences especially in the absence of any other cogent probabilities of his visit to the border State as labourer.
103. Evidence of the I/O (PW 21) that after apprehension of accused Hifjur on the evening of 4/12/2011 information received from the other I/O (PW 22) about the apprehension of accused Salim Uddin at Bilonia and recovery of an amount of Rs. 97,000/- and about unauthorized pistol in the possession of accused Hifjur and rest amount of ransom lying in the possession of accused Sultan Uddin are also found to be reliable mainly on the ground that an amount of Rs.6,88,500/- was admittedly recovered from the possession of accused Sultan Uddin. His evidence about recovery of arms, in the absence of any contradiction and material omission, can also be relied upon being 52
corroborated by independent witness, the PW 10. According to PW 10 the accused Hifjur discovered the arms and ammunition from beneath a ‗Cham‘ tree in his presence.
104. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 10, 21 and 22 it can be said that recovery of arms is an established fact and the same was recovered from the information gathered from accused Salim Uddin. Thus, it can easily be said that accused Salim Uddin had got knowledge of the concealment of the arms by accused Hifjur. The above knowledge thus suggests constructive possession of the arms and ammunition by accused Salim Uddin and actual possession by accused Hifjur. The accused Sultan Uddin although claimed the money as recovered as his own business money, but the same, in the absence of any accounts thereof, is difficult to be easily believed. This recovery of huge amount in pursuance of information especially gathered from accused Salim Uddin is also considered to be a strong chain of circumstances to fortify the prosecution case.
105. Evidence of seizure witness the PW 8 about the recovery of pant of deceased Naj on 23/01/2012 at the instance of accused Babul Ali accompanied by Raju Ahmed is also found to be believable, as because, it is seen that the said pant was discovered from beneath the water of a pond that was within the knowledge of both the accused persons. Therefore, their involvement with the alleged crime cannot easily be negated.
106. Evidence of Najima Begum (PW 2), the wife of accused Hifjur Rahman is considered to be a strong circumstantial evidence pointing out guilt of the accused Salim Uddin and Hifjur Rahman along with other accused Babul Ali, Raju and some other absconder accused 53
persons. Her evidence shows conduct of the accused Hifjur at the material time which she noticed, clearly indicates the preparations for commission of the offence of killing of a person and subsequent preparations for concealment of the dead body. His conduct so noticed is very much relevant within the purview of Sec. 8 of the Evidence Act. That too, her evidence also discloses an extra-judicial admission of facts by accused Hifjur to the effect that on the previous night i.e., on 19/11/2011 he along with some others killed one boy of Bhanga area. She also deposed to have seen that, on 20/11/2011 morning accused Babul Ali, Hifjur, Raju and absconder accused Karim ( father of accused Hifjur) to go out from their house taking piece of bamboo, dao, rope etc. is also a strong piece of evidence suggesting concealment of the dead body of Naj. The plea of alibi of accused Hifjur in the statement recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that at the material time he was at Golaghat for around a period of one and half month rather has fortified the prosecution case in the absence of any evidence thereof.
107. Evidence of PW 3 Moriom Bibi, the mother of accused Hussain Ahmed (Majnu) also gave both circumstantial accounts of the alleged happenings as an eye witness to the effect that, on the night of the alleged occurrence accused Hifjur along with 4/5 others forcibly took accused Hussain Ahmed from her house on the point of gun. Her evidence of hearing sound of gun firing beneath her ‗tilla‘ homestead land also suggests the involvement of the accused Hifjur and some others including her son accused Hussain Ahmed in the alleged killing of Naj by gun fire. Her evidence as paternal aunt of accused Hifjur regarding her visit of the house of PW 2 on that night for reporting against the accused Hifjur is also found to be corroborative with each other and thus it can easily be relied upon. Her evidence also shows that, she on the way to her return home saw accused Hifjur near a car along 54
with two others and also her evidence that accused Hifjur threatened her are also convincing. Moreover, her statements is supported by accused Hussain Ahmed himself during his examination U/S 313 Cr.P.C. by clearly admitting that accused Hifjur and 4/5 others took him from his house. Therefore, there is no cogent ground to disbelieve the testimony of both the PW 2 and 3.
108. In view of the above evidence of PW 2 and 3 it is abundantly clear that in the killing of victim Naj by gun shot, not only accused Hifjur but also some 4/5 others were involved. The recovery of Maruti 800 Car in an abundant condition also lends support to the prosecution case.
109. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs it is found that there are cogent, reliable and clinching evidence against accused Hifjur Rahman, Salim Uddin, Sultan Uddin, Hussain Ahmed, Raju, Babul Ali, and Rajani Talukdar. Evidence with regard to other accused persons is found to be not admissible mainly because their names came out from the mouth of the co-accused persons while being in the police custody and nothing special could be recovered in view of their statement. The evidence of PW 7 & 9 is therefore not strictly considered.
110. Prosecution side relied on the decision as published in 2012 (4) GLR 602 on the point of admissibility of statement made by accused person while in custody of the police within the purview of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. Relevant portion of the decision is quoted below- “Evidence Act, 1872, S. 27- Which part of the statement of an accused person would be admissible in evidence by taking resort to Sec. 27. In view of the fact that section 27 makes only “so much of the 55
information, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” provable, it clearly follows that a court is required to know as to what exactly the accused had stated to the police so that the court, before acting upon the evidence given, knows as to how much of the information, given by the accused, relates „distinctly‟ to the fact thereby discovered”
111. Here in the instant case there is corroborative and clinching evidence that after the apprehension of accused Hifjur, the accused first did not want to disclose anything to the police about the arms- ammunitions and accused Salim Uddin on the way from Bilonia to Karimganj over telephone asked accused Hifjur to hand over the gun stating as everything had already been lost. It is seen that after the above reporting over telephone accused Hifjur disclosed about his possession of arms and ammunition. Ultimately arms-ammunition could be recovered only on the basis of the said information gathered from accused Salim Uddin. The above statement made by the accused during his police custody or control and that led the discovery of the arms and ammunition can safely be relied upon as an admissible piece of evidence within the scope of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act.
112. Now, while turning to the evidence of PW 1, it is seen that the PW 1 did not mention the name of any other accused persons except Rajani Talukdar both in his FIR and in his written statement, the Exhibit- 3, and also there are many omissions about the detailed disclosure of the entire episode of his searching of Naj, receiving information from accused Rajani Talukdar about the seized motor cycle, bargaining about ransom with miscreants, payment of ransom, recognition /identification of voice of accused Salim Uddin and hearing of name of Mumin over telephone have been proved in the evidence of I/O. But in view of 56
subsequent discovery of dead body and other incriminating materials, huge amount of money from both accused Salim Uddin and Sultan Uddin, arrest of Salim Uddin in a remote international border place like Bilonia clearly suggest that whatever information received and whatever is deposed to have been disclosed by accused Rajani are true. Such omissions are very much natural for a father searching for his son. That too, the PW 1 in his Exhibit- 3 ‗written statement‘ stated that he for safe rescue of his son did not mention about the demand of ransom in the FIR. Under the facts and circumstances of such a nature of case, no father of a missing son would be in a normal state of mind to disclose each and every part in details before the police. The evidence of PW 1 is found to be reliable in the absence of any material contradiction or material discrepancies.
113. That apart, he informed the Court during his evidence stating that accused persons were making conspiracy to kill him. The conspiracy was informed to him by one Babul Khan and one Abul who were jail inmates with present accused persons and got released a few days back. He further adduced that he was feeling unsafe and received information of dire consequences that in case bail was not granted within the following ‗Romjan‘ i.e., by one month he would be killed and for which Rs. 10,00,000/- would be spent by the accused persons. He further adduced that he had also lodged ejahar to the above effect and also previously lodged two ejahars on the same ground informing the involvement of the accused persons in many other serious criminal cases. In the cross-examination there is no categorical denial of the above statements. Rather, he asserted in the cross examination that he applied for police security to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj.
57
114. The above evidence regarding his apprehension of death ultimately came as true in view of the fact available in the record that he was shot dead a few days after closer of his cross-examinations. Therefore, it clearly appears that as he gave evidence under such mental strain having apprehension of any untoward incident including his killing, there seems little likelihood of his making any false statement on oath before the Court. This part of evidence regarding apprehension being complete true, the other parts of his evidence may also regarded as believable in absence of any major contradiction in the cross- examination or any material discrepancy.
115. Moreover, as his evidence being found to be corroborated by the PW 4 & 5, who deposed to have last seen the victim Naj with accused Rajani on the night of the alleged kidnapping, can also be totally relied upon.
116. In view of the above discussions, findings and observations it is clearly evident that all the circumstances upon which the prosecution relied upon are fully established by way of corroborative, cogent and clinching evidence. All the witnesses are found to be reliable. There is no break of any chain of circumstances and all the circumstances so established lead one and only inference that accused persons namely, Hifjur Rahman, Salim Uddin, Sultan Uddin, Raju Ahmed, Hussain Ahmed, Babul Ali and Rajani Talukder in one way or other involved in the criminal conspiracy - of kidnapping of Naj, killing of Naj by gun shot, to cause disappearance of evidence of offences by way of burial of dead body, concealing of wearing apparels, arms and ammunitions etc., and of extortion of ransom, and all of them took their respective active part towards the completion of all the offences.
58
117. Amongst the above accused Babul Ali, Monowara Begum and Hussain Ahmed expressed their willingness to adduce evidence for the prosecution. Subsequently they were separately heard. Learned P.P. expressed to treat only the accused Babul Ali as an approver and accordingly made a prayer in writing that true and full disclosure of fact within the knowledge of the accused would be helpful for the prosecution. The accused also made a prayer in writing expressing his willingness to adduce evidence disclosing each and every fact truly whatever within his knowledge on condition of pardon. Accordingly the accused was duly declared as an approver and he was examined on oath as PW 23. He was also cross-examined at length. Substance of his evidence is given below.
118. He started to reside in the area of accused Hifjur about six months prior to the date of alleged occurrence and the locality is full of jungles and many ‗tillas‘ (high land). At the material time on one Monday while he was working in the paddy field of accused both accused Hifjur and his father Abdul Karim came there. On request of accused Abdul Karim he on that evening went to the house of accused Abdul Karim and noticed two numbers of bamboo pieces of ‗Barua‘ variety having length of about four and half feet each. On his query it was told that the same bamboo was brought for using in paddy stock house. After that the accused Abdul Karim told that one dead body was lying on the eastern side of house with two pistols. Accused Abdul Karim told that in case of disclosure he (Abdul Karim) would be entangled. The accused requested Babul Ali to extend help for shifting the dead body. On that evening at about 9/10 PM accused Hifjur, Raju, Rizu, sons of accused Abdul Karim and Abdul Karim himself came to his house (Babul Mian) with two pistols. Accused Hifjur and Abdul Karim on the point of two pistols asked him to go with them. Accused 59
Raju threatened him with a dao and Rizu on the point of knife asked him to go with them. His wife accused Monowara Begum requested them for not taking him with them. Accused persons then told that he would be killed in case he did not accompany them. After that he went with them. Then he found a dead body wrapped with ‗Pati‘ (bamboo mat). Then all of them carried the dead body towards Haldiala tilla. There accused Abdul Karim, Hifjur, Raju, Oli, Helal, Rizu, Minu and he went up the hill. He dug earth near a ‗Shimul‘ tree. All of them helped him in the digging. Dead body was buried there. Pati and polythene packet, bamboos were taken towards the eastern side. After proceeding of about one kilometer one fishery of Haji Abdur Rouf was found almost in an isolated land. All of them excepting him took bath. On his refusal to take bath accused Abdul Karim father of accused Hifjur stated that in case of non-bathing he may be caught by police dog. Accused Hifjur buried the ‗Pati‘ and polythene packet below the pond water. After that accused Hifjur and Abdul Karim concealed two pistols and one knife being wrapped with either paper or cloth near a ‗Cham‘ tree in their land where he (Babul Ali) used to reside. On his query about the identity of dead body both the accused Abdul Karim and Hifjur told him that they killed Salim Uddin. Subsequently he could know that dead body was of Naj. During investigation he lead the police to the place of concealment of polythene packet in the pond of Abdur Rouf and the same was recovered from inside the pond at his instance. When polythene packet was opened, a pant was found inside the same which he saw before the Court as material exhibit.
119. The substance of the above evidence could not be demolished by the defence side. Rather his statements are found to have corroborated the evidence of I/O (PW 21) and PW 8. Therefore, upon consideration of the above and the evidence in its entirety, it is viewed 60
that the disclosure so made is full about all the facts within the knowledge of the approver (PW 23). During scanning of his evidence provision of Sec.114 (b) Evidence Act that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars; is duly considered and from all points of view his evidence is found to be true and reliable. So his evidence may also be taken into consideration in appreciating the evidence so led by the other prosecution witnesses.
120. Even, in total exclusion of the above evidence of the approver the prosecution evidence as discussed earlier is found as sufficient enough to establish the prosecution case against the accused persons as named earlier. But, the above additional evidence not only lends support to fortify the prosecution case but also helps to confirm the involvement of the accused persons as named earlier without any shadow of doubt with the alleged crime.
DISCUSSION ON POINTS OF LAW
121. Prosecution sanction to proceed under the Arms Act was obtained from amongst the above only against accused Hifjur Rahman, Selim Uddin, Hussain Ahmed and Rajani Talukder. Charge was framed against accused Hifjur Rahman U/S 25(1 A) of the Arms Act, 1959, for possessing factory made pistol and one ammunition. Separate charge was also framed against all the accused persons U/S 27(3) of the Arms Act. Since no prosecution sanction was obtained against Sultan Uddin, Babul Ali and Raju Ahmed, at the outset their names are excluded from the charge for discussion.
61
122. Both the above charged Sections refer prohibited arms and ammunition. Prohibited arms is defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Arms Act which reads as follows –
(i) firearms so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty, or (ii) weapons of any description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid ……………(This part is not relevant).
123. ―Prohibited ammunition‖, as defined in Section 2 (1)(h) of the Act, means any ammunition containing, or designed or adapted to contain, any noxious liquid, gas or other such thing, and includes rockets, bombs, grenades, shells, missiles articles designed for torpedo service and submarine mining and such other articles as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify to be prohibited ammunition ;
124. Here in the instant case the recovered ammunition and arms do not fall within the category of the above prohibited arms and ammunition. They are thus treated as simple fire arm and ammunition.
125. Therefore, Section 27(3) of the Act which refers use of prohibited arms is not attracted in this case. But on the contrary it only attracts Section 27(1) of the Act which refers use of arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5, that is, unauthorized use of arms or ammunition without licence. Similarly offence as charged U/S 25( 1A) is also not attracted instead Section 25(1-B)(a) of the act is well attracted, which means acquiring, possessing, carrying of any fire arm or 62
ammunition in contravention of Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly both the above charges as framed earlier need to be altered. It appears that accused persons will not be prejudiced in case of such alteration of charge to the smaller offences of the Sections.
126. Similarly, it has earlier been mentioned that prosecution side pointed out that charge framed U/S. 387/34 IPC discloses two parts of the alleged incident of extortion disclosing in the first part about the telephonic demand of Rs.50,00,000/- on the night of 20/11/2011 and in the second part about the completion of the extortion of Rs.12,00,000/- at Mandihati, Meghalaya. It is seen that the defence side accordingly got chance to cross-examine all the witnesses at length on the point of extortion. Since there are reliable evidence about the demand of money by putting the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt of his son the same offence falls within the purview of Sec. 387/34 IPC. Like way as there are reliable evidence of payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- as disclosed in the charge the offence of extortion being completed falls U/S. 386/34 IPC and therefore there would be no prejudiced to the accused in case of any such alteration or addition of section 386/34 IPC in the said charge.
127. Here, discussion over the charge regarding both Arms Act and IPC as made above, reliance is placed on the following citation. Relevant part of the citation is also reproduced.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal No. 989 of 2003 Decided On: 03.01.2011 Appellants: S. Ganesan Vs. Respondent: Rama Raghuraman and Ors.
“14. So far as the issue of setting aside the conviction under Section 120B IPC against both the Respondents and not framing the charge under any other penal provision is concerned - it has to be considered, as to whether conviction under 63
any other provision for which the charge has not been framed, is sustainable in law. The issue is no longer res integra and has been considered by the Court from time to time. The accused must be aware as to what is the case against them and what defence they could lead. Unless the parties satisfy the Court that there has been a failure of justice from non-framing of charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice has been caused to them, conviction under such provision of law is sustainable.
(Vide: Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0079/1973 : AIR 1973 SC 2221) 15. This Court in Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0888/2009 : AIR 2010 SC 3786, while considering the issue placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court particularly in Topandas v. State of Bombay, MANU/SC/0032/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 33; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0038/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 116; Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1967 SC 1326; State of A.P. v. Thakkidiram Reddy MANU/SC/0490/1998 : AIR 1998 SC 2702; Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0632/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3853; and Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/2515/2005 : AIR 2006 SC 191, and came to the following conclusion:
17. Therefore,.... unless the convict is able to establish that defect in framing the charges has caused real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him and that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities.
Conviction order in fact is to be tested on the touchstone of prejudice theory.”
128. Evidence discloses that at the instance of the accused Salim Uddin arms and ammunition were recovered at the instance of accused Hifjur Rahman. However, it need to be mentioned here that when accused Salim Uddin was apprehended at Bilonia and on the way to Karimganj a telephonic talk was arranged in between accused Salim Uddin and Hifjur Rahman who was also in the police custody and who first declined about the possession of any arms, but at the instruction of accused Salim Uddin he agreed to handover arm and ultimately arms and ammunition was recovered at his instance. Therefore, it is seen that the arm and ammunition was well within the knowledge of accused Salim Uddin and as such he had a constructive possession of and control over the same. He had also got sufficient scope for cross-examination on this point. Therefore, giving findings, if any, U/S 25 (1-B) (a) of the Arms 64
Act jointly with accused Hifjur Rahman even without framing of any additional formal charge against him in the light of the above citation of the Hon‘ble Apex Court will not cause prejudice to the said accused.
129. In support of the prosecution submission of common intention of all the accused persons, prosecution side cited the decision as published in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1344 Suresh Vs. State of U.P. To my understanding the relevant points for this case in hand is mentioned in page 1349 and in subsequent pages which are reproduced here-in-below:–
Para 22 that read as “Thus to attract section 34, IPC two postulates are indispensable. (1) The criminal act (consisting of a series of acts) should have been done, not by one person, but more than one person. (2) Doing of every such individual act cumulatively resulting in the commission of criminal offence should have been in furtherance of the common intention or all such persons.”
Para 39. “Participation in the crime in furtherance of the common intention cannot conceive of some independent criminal act by all accused persons, besides the ultimate criminal act because for that individual act law takes care of making such accused responsible under the other provisions of the Code. The word “act” used in Section 34 denotes a series of acts as a single act. What is required under law is that the accused persons sharing the common intention must be physically present at the scene of occurrence and be shown to not have dissuaded themselves from the intended criminal act for which they shared the common intention. Culpability under section 34 cannot be excluded by mere distance from the scene of occurrence. The presumption of constructive intention, however, has to be arrived at only 65
when the Court can, with judicial servitude, hold that the accused must have preconceived result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Shartrughan Patar v. Emperor, AIR 1919 Pat III: (1919 (20) Cri LJ 289) held that it is only when a Court with some certainty hold that a particular accused must have pre-conceived or premeditated with result which ensued or acted in concert with others in order to bring about that result, that Section 34 may be applied.”
130. Here in the instant case from the evidence discussed earlier and from findings over the fact, it transpires that about seven days prior to the missing of Naj a conspiracy was first exposed when it was disclosed by accused Salim Uddin to accused Rajani for kidnapping of Naj for ransom. Accused Rajani out of greed of money agreed to help on the matter of kidnapping. The evidence does not disclose that accused Rajani could guess any other motive of accused Salim Uddin. The accused Rajani having intimacy with victim Naj as per direction and plan of accused Salim Uddin managed to handover Naj in an unconscious state by way of making consumption of ‗corex‘ syrup having sleeping substance. Had he been had any knowledge that Naj would be killed he would have absconded like other accused persons especially being the person of Brahmaputra Valley and would not have informed about the motor cycle. It clearly appears that till giving of information to the father of Naj about the motor cycle he had no knowledge that on the night of kidnapping of Naj itself Naj was killed. Therefore, it can be deduced that he had only participated directly with the offence of kidnapping. So, he shared the common intention with accused Salim Uddin only with regard to the offence of kidnapping.
66
131. As regard accused Sultan Uddin, the evidence discloses that he had a mobile shop at Ladrimbai, Meghalaya and he is the elder brother of accused Salim Uddin. Offence of extortion was committed at Mandihati, Meghalaya nearing Ladrimbai. It is found to be proved that a huge amount of Rs. 6,88,500/- was recovered in bundles from his possession at Ladrimbai in his rented house. He failed to give any account of the money to the police and the witness present. The money was recovered on the basis of information collected from accused Salim Uddin just after his apprehension at Bilonia, Tripura. The money so recovered has been proved as extorted money by the evidence of the PW 6 and the complainant himself.
132. As per Section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act which reads as – that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession.
133. It is a well settled law that possession of stolen property immediately after it has been stolen affords a strong presumption. It is observed in R. v Hari Maniram, 7 Bom LR 887, 893 ; Bharos v R, 81 IC 588 : 21 ALJ 836 that ―Presumption is not a presumption as to the fact of possession, but the presumption of guilt which arises, under the rule of common sense embodied in Section 114, from the accused not accounting for his possession of stolen goods of which he is proved to be in possession soon after the theft.” ( SARKAR‟S LAW OF EVIDENCE, 13th Edition, page 1030 ).
134. Here in the instant case nature of cross-examination for the accused clearly shows that the accused first wanted to establish that the money was not seized from his house, in as much as suggestion was put 67
to the effect that the I/O and the PW 6 did not visit his house at Ladrimbai and signature of the accused was taken in the seizure list at Karimganj. This type of defence clearly shows that the accused having full knowledge of the extortion not only tried to disassociate him from the crime but also tried to save his younger brother the accused Selim Uddin. Considering the seizure of huge amount from his house just few days after the alleged crime of extortion which happened at Mandihati, Meghalaya, nearing the place of seizure (the rented house of accused Sultan Uddin) and involvement of his younger brother the accused Salim Uddin with the connected offence of murder and his absconding at Bilonia give rise to strong presumption of guilt against accused Sultan Uddin under the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, it can safely be arrived at that he also shared the common intention to commit the offence of extortion with other accused.
135. Evidence is, however, lacking to suggest that the accused Sultan Uddin did anything to share the common intention with other accused to commit the offence of murder by doing any act either overt or covert in the commission of murder. Therefore, his involvement in the commission of murder and offences related thereto is not established.
136. Similarly accused Sultan Uddin does not fall within the purview of the offence U/S 27 of the Arms Act for want of prosecution sanction.
137. As arms and ammunition recovered directly from the physical possession of accused Hifjur Rahman, and constructive possession of accused Salim Uddin as such others may be excluded from within the purview of offence U/S. 27 (1) of the Arms Act.
68
138. Evidence especially the evidence of approver Babul Ali does not disclose the name of accused Hussain Ahmed in the concealment of dead body of victim Naj, wearing apparels of Naj and also arms and ammunition. So, it is difficult to infer his direct involvement with the offence under Section 201 IPC. However, his subsequent conduct of absconding away to Kailashahar after the alleged occurrence as well as his apprehension at Kailashahar by the people of Bhanga locality as reveals in his 313 Cr. P.C. statement clearly indicates his involvement with the facts and circumstances leading to killing of Naj and thus his conduct is very much relevant U/S 8, illustration (i) of the Evidence Act. Evidence of his mother about hearing of sound of gun at the material time and taking away of Hussain Ahmed by accused Hifjur clearly indicates his sharing of common intention with the other accused in the murder of Naj.
139. As regards accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Raju Ahmed and Hussain Ahmed it is seen in the evidence as discussed in detail that they directly shared the common intention in the commission of murder of Naj.
140. Amongst the above accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, and Raju Ahmed shared the common intention both by covert and overt act in the concealments of evidences of the offence of murder within the scope of Section 201 IPC were done in the transaction of the offence of murder and other related offences, evidence of which are being found so interweaved with each other in causing disappearance of weapons of murder, wearing apperal of dead body, mobile set etc, I am of the view that holding of guilty of offence U/S 201 IPC separately is not necessary in as much as proving of the charge of murder is sufficient.
69
141. As regards accused Babul Ali evidence merely discloses about his involvement in the concealment of dead body of Naj and there is no evidence of sharing of any common intention with any other accused persons regarding other offences. However, in view of the observation as made earlier regarding true and full disclosure of facts within his knowledge, he is deemed to have been discharged from all the charges on being pardoned as approver as sought for.
142. In view of the entire discussion of evidence on the record and relating to the points of law, observations and findings it is held that the prosecution case is opened to doubt as against accused Mumin Uddin, Shamim Ahmed, Kamal Hussain, Monowara Begum, Riaz Uddin and Nazim Uddin not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. They are, thus, held to be not guilty of the offence as charged against them and whatsoever. So they are acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Accused Babul Mian being an approver is pardoned and acquiited from the charges as framed against him and set at liberty forthwith.
143. However, in the light of above discussions it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against following accused persons in the following manner –
1. as against accused Rajani Talukder offence U/S 365/34 IPC and U/S 120 (B) IPC for abetting of offence of extortion; 2. as against accused Sultan Uddin U/S 386/34; 3. as against accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Raju Ahmed offence U/S 386/34 IPC; 4. as against accused Hussain Ahmed, Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman offence U/S 365/34 IPC; 70
5. as against accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Raju Ahmed, Hussain Ahmed offence U/S 302/34 IPC; 6. as against accused Hifjur Rahman and Salim Uddin offence U/S 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act,1959; 7. as against accused Hifjur Rahman offence U/S 27(1) Arms Act, 1959; Accordingly all the accused persons as named above are held guilty and convicted under the aforesaid Sections of Law.
144. I have heard the accused persons on the point of sentences in compliance of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The statement of all the accused persons are recorded in separate sheets tagged with the record.Learned P.P.has submuitted photo copy of judgment dated 15/12/2012 passed by learned Asstt Sessions Judge, Karimganj convicting and sentencing accused Salim Uddin in Sessions Case No 58/2012 U/S 448/384/325 IPC. Learned P.P. has submitted for Capital Punishment also cited decision as published in AIR 2011 SC 803. Learned Defence Counsel Shri D. Chakrabarty has submitted that even in accused of terrorist cases like ALFA leniency has been shown. Submssion is, therefore, made for lenient punishment.
145. Having due regard to all the statements made by the accused persons, submissions of learned counsel of both sides, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the heinousness of the offences and all other aspects I convict and sentence accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Rajani Talukder, Sultan Uddin, Raju Ahmed, Hussain Ahmed in the following terms and manner:-
1. accused Rajani Talukder for offence U/S 365/34 IPC to under go rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 7 (seven) years and fine of Rs 5,000/-, in default he shall further under go R.I. for 6 (six) months, and 71
for offence U/S 120(B) IPC as an abettor of the offence of extortion to undergo R.I. for a period of 3(three) years with fine of Rs 2000/-, in default, further R.I. for 6(six) months. Both the above Sentences shall run consecutively.
2. accused Sultan Uddin for offence U/S 386/34 to under go RI for 10 (ten) years with fine of Rs 15,000/-, in default he shall further under go R.I. for 12 (twelve) months;
3. accused Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman, Raju Ahmed for offence U/S 386/34 IPC. RI to under go R.I. for a period of 10 (ten) years each with fine of Rs 15,000/-each, and in default shall under go further R.I. for 12 (twelve) months;
4. accused Hussain Ahmed, Salim Uddin, Hifjur Rahman for offence U/S 365/34 IPC to under go RI for a period of 7(seven) years each and fine of Rs 5,000/-each, in default shall further R.I. for 6 (six) months;
5. accused Hifjur Rahman and Salim Uddin for offence U/S 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act,1959 to under go R.I. for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs 5000/-each, in default further R.I. for 6(six) months ;
6. accused Hifjur Rahman for offence U/S 27(1) Arms Act, 1959 to under go R.I. for 3 (three years) with fine of Rs 5000/-, in default shall further under go R.I. for 6 (six) months.
7. accused Raju Ahmed and Hussain Ahmed are sentenced for ‗LIFE‘ for offence U/S 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs 15,000/- each, in default, shall under go further R.I. for a period of 1(one) year; 72
146. Period of detention as under gone by the accused persons during the period of investigation and trial in this case shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment so imposed on each of them as per provision of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO FURTHER SENTENCE FOR ACCUSED HIFJUR RAHMAN AND SALIM UDDIN.
147. Section 302 IPC provides punishment to the extent of Death sentence. Death Sentence is only to be imposed in extreme cases where no other punishment would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and when a case falls under the category of ―rarest of the rare‖ cases. Now, question is required to be decided whether this case falls within the purview of ―rarest of the rare‖ cases and whether it is a case fit for sentencing all or any of the accused persons to death penalty.
148. This issue has again and again come before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court for deciding factors to be taken into consideration for opting extreme penalty. This issue was mainly decided in the following three cases namely Bachan Singh V State of Punjab,(1980) 2 SCC 684 in subsequent decision in Machhi Singh, (1983) 3 SCC 470 and Swami Shraddananda V State of Karnataka, (2008) 13, SCC 767. The Hon‘ble Apex Court after considering many factors in Machhi Singh case mainly observed that there cannot be any inflexible or rigid rule for imposition of the extreme penalty like death and before imposition of such penalty a balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances which speaks in favour of offender has to be accorded maximum weightage, and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating 73
circumstances before the opinion is exercised. However, the Hon‘ble Apex Court laid down some principles and guidelines for taking into consideration before exercising the extreme penalty. The same are namely – Motive of the crime, the manner of the assault, the impact of the crime on the society as a whole, the personality of the victim, circumstances and facts of the case as to whether the crime committed is for satisfying any kind of lust, greed or in pursuance of any organized antisocial activity or by way of organized crime, drug trafficking or the life or the chances of inflicting the society with a similar criminal act, that is to say, vulnerability of the members of the society at the hands of the accused in future or commission of murder which may be shocking to the conscience In the light of the above guidelines discussions are made below.
(i) The accused Salim Uddin, Rajani Talukder and some of the accused were known to the complainant and his son victim Naj since prior to the alleged occurrence. The evidence reveals that accused Rajani Talukder had got some intimacy with deceased Naj. The plea of political rivalry with accused Salim Uddin as taken in the evidence goes to show accused Salim Uddin and complainant were well known to each other. So, it cannot be believed that the murder might have been caused only to screen the accused persons from the offence of extortion. So there appears no mitigating circumstance of the offence of murder.
(ii) It clearly transpires that the victim Naj @ Ahrar Ahmed was victimized of his friendship with accused Rajani Talukder, who betrayed victim only on consideration of monetary gain and that is most uncommon in the crime.
74
(iii) Contention of the learned defence counsel, basing on the statement of accused Salim Uddin as recorded by I/O to the effect that as Naj could identify the accused persons, Naj was required to be killed by gunshot, does not hold good. Because Naj was first taken by his friend accused Rajani and their friendship was well known to the accused Salim Uddin and for that accused Salim Uddin engaged Rajani in the kidnapping. Therefore, it was well within their knowledge that in case of release of Naj there would be always a risk of surfacing of offence and apprehension of accused persons. With that full knowledge of surfacing of offences the accused persons kidnapped Naj. Therefore, in no case it can be said that there was no previous intention or motive of murder of Naj and with the very motive of extorting huge amount and with the previous intention of killing of Naj they kidnapped Naj. There is no evidence of either personal enmity or political enmity that might induced them to cause death of an innocent student of B Sc.3rd Year.
(iv) Evidence revealed that the plan was made mainly by accused Salim Uddin about seven days prior to the alleged occurrence in cold blood and in pursuance of the plan, Naj was taken to the custody of accused persons in an unconscious manner to a distance place of jungle area of Monosangan near the house of accused Hussain Ahmed. It is also seen that accused persons were with fire arms. This fact tends to suggest that the accused persons with the previous intention of killing kidnapped Naj. On the following night of killing dead body was concealed with a planned way. Similarly arms and wearing apparels of Naj were also concealed. By this time accused Salim Uddin managed to go to Bilonia. Thus it clearly appears that the offences were committed in an organized way.
75
(v) At the time of killing of the victim there was none to protest and resist the act or to rescue the victim. Rather, he was helpless almost in an unconscious manner due to consumption of ‗corex‘ with sleeping substance. Firing of pistol on the head of the victim in his helpless condition without having any apparent mitigating circumstances is viewed as the extreme atrocity and cruelty. Apparently, it is a cold blooded murder committed with a deliberate design in order to screen the offence of extortion which at that time was not completed and it was mainly organized by accused Salim Uddin who is the Master Mind of the offences executed with the aid of others.
(vi) There is nothing in the evidence on the record adverse to the character of the victim and also to any of his family members including the complainant. The complainnt is found to be an Arts Graduate and was a rich man of his locality. Besides the vicitim was a student of B Sc. In the absence of any adverse evidence all the above goes to the credit of his reputation at least in the eye of people of his locality.
(vii) It is evident on the record that just after missing of victim Naj law and order deteriorated and for which curfew was promulgated in the Badarpur and its adjacent locality. Many houses got burnt as a repercussion of missing and killing of Naj, and people were annoyed against the anti-socials and police administration. This shows the gravity of the offences viewed in the eye of the society. Fault of the victim was that he belonged to a reputed wealthy family and nothing else.
(viii) In the evidence un-rebutted statement of the complainant about the criminal background of the accused persons and reference about the involvement of accused Salim Uddin in murder case of one 76
Burhan Uddin by gunshot, and also recent conviction of accused Salim Uddin (being referred by learned P.P. during argument, and not denied by the accused) by the Court of the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Karimganj on 15.12.2012 in connection with the Session Case No. 58/2012 u/s 448/384/325 IPC etc. undoubtedly suggests the criminal background of the accused Salim Uddin.
(ix) Adducing of evidence by seven months pregnant wife (PW 2) of accused Hifjur for the prosecution is also considered as very exceptionl. Similarly, giving of evidence by the mother of accused Hussain Ahmed for the prosecution also suggests the gravity of the offence and its impact in the society.
(x) Just few days after completion of his evidence and during the period of trial of this case, the complainant was murdered by gunshot. This unnatural death touched the sentiment of the society as a whole. Six numbers of accused persons of this case including accused Hifjur Rahman and Salim Uddin are also found to be charge-sheeted for the alleged murder of the complainant Tufail Ahmed (PW 1), who apprehending of his murder at the instance of the accused persons made prayer before the Court and also before the District Magistrate, Karimganj for his security and also deposed to have filed ejahars to this effect before the police. It appears that he even without having provided any security did not fear to fight for justice not only for his son but also for the society as a whole and ultimately sacrificed his life for the cause of justice. In case he did not so venture to fight for justice, his life would have been saved.
(xi) It is seen that accused persons namely- Salim Uddin and Hifjur Rahman are of young age and are married persons. Generally in 77
such cases Court viewed the age and family life with sympathy on humanitarian ground.
(xii) In the instant case it is seen that almost all family members of accused Hifjur were involved at least in the concealment of the dead body of victim Naj. Father and one other son namely Abdul Karim and Riju Ahmed respectively being charge-sheeted are still absconding. The wife of accused Hifjur stood for the prosecution at the stage of her about seven month pregnancy. This goes to show that his wife is also scared of the accused and she had even no sympathy for her husband accused Hifjur. So, the question arises why this Court should show sympathy. Both the accused Salim Uddin and Hifjur are transpired to be main perpetrators of the offences. However, Salim Uddin is seemed to be the main brain behind all the offences. It clearly reveals that offences of this case committed with a fine network designed by accused Salim Uddin. Therefore, for such an evil brain he deserves no sympathy.
(xiii) Having due regard to the above and drawing up of balance- sheet between mitigating and aggravating circumstances giving full weightage to the mitigating circumstances for favour of the accused I am of the view that this is a ―rarest of the rare‖ case for which the death sentence is the only option to be exercised against the accused Salim Uddin and accused Hifjur Rahman.
149. In the light of the above, I am of the firm view that, the instant case falls within the category of ―rarest of rare‖ case for which both the accused Hifjur Rahman and Salim Uddin already being held guilty with the offence U/S 302/34 IPC convicted and sentenced with DEATH PENALTY and thus they shall be hanged in execution of death sentence till death and with fine of Rs 15,000/- each. 78
150. Fine amount, if realize, shall be paid to the mother of the deceased Naj @ Ahrar Ahmed as compensation U/S 357 Cr.P.C.as mother of the deceased is found to be still alive.
DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF VICTIM COMPENSATION:
151. In obedience to the direction of the Hon‘ble Gauhati High Court given in the Criminal Appeal No. 93(J) of 2005 vis-à-vis sec 357A Cr.P.C it has transpired in evidence that victim Naj was college going student and was unmarried and he was not an earning member of his family, as such he had no dependant in his family. Further, the victim hailed from a well off family and as such due to his death his family is not in any dire need of rehabilitation in the form of any further pecuniary compensation. So I am of the reasonable opinion that compensation awarded under Section 357 Cr.P.C will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Hence, I am inclined not to extend the benefit of Section 357A Cr.P.C to the family of victim Naj.
152. Seized amount of Rs 7, 85,500/- shall be paid to the mother of victim Naj, who will execute a bond to the effect that she shall refund back the amount if required by the Court. Seized wearing garments of deceased Naj shall be kept preserved until further order. Zimma of Indica Car is, here by, made absolute. As Zimmader of seized Motor Cycle as seize vide MR No.144/2011 (vide Ext 2) has expired the same shall be produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj by the I/O of this case and the same shall be given to zimma of another suitable person as per satisfaction of Ld C.J.M., Karimganj. As regards seized Maruti Car seized vide MR No. 151(Ext.11) bearing registration No. ML.05-G-8545 no claim has yet been made till date. The same being 79
not produced before this court shall be produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, who shall dispose of the same as per law. Arms and ammunition as seized are hereby confiscated and shall be handed over to the O/C, Badarpur PS for safe custody until further order. As offence against 7 Nos. of accused being shown as absconder in the charge-sheet are yet to be committed no order regarding disposal of other seized materials is passed at this stage.
153. Copies of the judgment shall be furnished to all the convict accused persons immediately free of cost as per provision of Section 363 Cr.P.C. Also certified copies of final order shall also be supplied to the convicts free of cost.
154. Copies of the judgment also be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Karimganj as per provision of Section 365 Cr.P.C.
155. This proceeding shall be submitted before the Hon‘ble Gauhati High Court, Guwahati as per provision of Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence This final judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open Court under my seal and signature on this 7th day of January, 2013. Transcribed at my dictation, Corrected by me and every page Bear my signature.
( K. Choudhury ) ( K. Choudhury ) Sessions Judge Sessions Judge Karimganj Karimganj
Typed by me
Ashim Kumar Das, Stenographer Gr.II. 80
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, KARIMGANJ.
Sessions Case No. 75/2012
APPENDIX
(A) PROSECUTION WITNESSES: -
PW 1 – Tofail Ahmed, PW 2 – Nazima Begum, PW 3 – Morium Bibi, PW 4 – Kamal Uddin, PW 5 – Forid Uddin, PW 6 – Kamrul Islam, PW 7 – Juber Zaman, PW 8 – Md. Matabur Rahman, PW 9 – Mokbul Hoque, PW10 – Jalal Uddin, PW11 – Abdul Rouf, PW12 – Pranjit Das, PW13 – Badrul Hoque, PW14 – Ratnadip Bhattacharjee (SDJM(S), Karimganj), PW15 – Nijam Uddin, PW16 – Nirmal Kanti Deb Nath (Circle Officer, Badarpur), PW17 – Dr. Y.N. Singh, PW18 – Mehabub Hussain Laskar (Habilder 6APP Batelion, Silchar), PW19 – Nabendu Das (S/I of police), PW20 – Samsul Hoque (ASI of police), PW 21 – Khirod Baishya (S/I of police), PW22 – Jotimoy Dutta (S/I of police), PW23 – Babul Ali (approver).
(B) DEFENCE WITNESSES: - NIL.
(C) COURT WITNESSES: -
CW 1 – Nazima Begum (PW 2),
(D) PROSECUTION EXHIBITS: -
Ext. 1 – Ejahar, Ext. 1 (1) – Signature of PW 1, Ext. 2 – Seizure list of motor cycle, Ext. 2 (1) – Signature of PW 1, Ext. 2 (2) – Signature of PW 21, 81
Ext. 3 – Application dated 22/11/11 of PW 1, Ext. 3 (1) – Signature of PW 1, Ext. 4- Search and seizure list of mobile set identified as of Naj, Ext. 4 (1) – Signature of PW 1, Ext.5 – Statement of Nazima Begum, PW 2 recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C, Ext.5 (1-5) – Signature of PW 2, Ext.6 – Inquest report, Ext.6 (1) – signature of Kamrul Islam, PW 6, Ext.7 – Search and Seizure list of currency notes showing recovered from Sultan Uddin, Ext.7 (1-2) – Signatures of PW 6, Ext.7 (3) – Signature of accused Sultan Uddin, Ext.7 (4 to 7) – Signatures of PW 20, Ext.8 – Seizure list prepared by PW 21, Ext.8 (1) – Signature of Matabur Rahman, PW 8, Ext.8 (2) – Signature of PW 21(I/O), Ext.9 – Search and Seizure list of Polythene packet containing arms and ammunition. Ext.9 (1)– Signature of Jalal Uddin (PW 10), Ext.9 (2)– Signature of PW 21 (I/O),
Ext.10 – Search and Seizure list of two bundles of currency notes, school bag, mobile set having sim No 9612969568 and 9401925019 at Bilonia labour camp , Ext.10 (1) – Signature of Abdur Rouf (PW 11), Ext.10 (2) – Signature of I/O (PW 22), Ext.11 – Seizure list of Maruti 800 Car bearing No. ML 05-G-8545, Ext.11 (1)– Signature of Pranjit Das (PW 12), Ext.12 – Seizure list of Indica Car bearing R/C No AS-10/9838 with documents, Ext.12 (1)– Signature of Badrul Haque (PW 13), Ext.12 (2)– Signature of I/O (PW 21) Ext.13 – Statement of PW 3 Moriom Bibi recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C., Ext.13(1 & 2) –Signature of SDJM(S), Karimganj (PW 14), Ext.14 – Statement of accused Monowara Begum recorded U/S 164 Cr.P.C Ext.14(1& 2) – Signature of SDJM(S),Karimganj (PW 14 ), Ext.15 – Seizure List of wearing garments of victim, Ext.15(1) – Signature of Nizam Uddin (PW 15), Ext.15(2) – Signature of PW 19, Ext.16– Post Mortem Report, Ext.16(1)– Signature of Dr. Y.N.Singh (Sinha) (PW 17), Ext.16(2)– Signature of Dr. Professor B. C. Roy Medhi, Ext.17 – Armorer report (PW 18), Ext. 17(1) – Signature of PW 18, 82
Ext.18 – Forwarding letter of sending of report to S.P.,Karimganj, Ext.18 (1) – Signature of PW 18, Ext.19 – Sketch map prepared by PW 19, Ext19(1) – Signature of PW 19, Ext.20 – Sketch map showing dwelling house of the complainant, Ext.20 (1) – Signature of I/O (PW 21), Ext.21 – Sketch map of the second P.O. showing the Reliance petrol Pump and Hotel, Ext.21 (1)–Signature of PW 21 (I/O), Ext.22 – Extract copy of Badarpur PS GD entry No 595 dated 22/11/2011, Ext.22 (1)– Signature of I/O (PW 21), Ext.23 – Prayer of prosecution sanction, Ext.24 – Prosecution sanction issued by D.M., ,Karimganj, Ext.24(1)– Seal and signature of the D.M., namely, Jiten Borguari, Ext.25 – Charge-sheet submitted by PW 21, Ext.25(1) – Signature of PW 21, Ext.26 –Extract copy of Badarpur PS GD entry No 36 dated 2//121/2011 Ext.27 – Sketch map of place of apprehension of accused Selim Uddin at Bilonia, Ext.27(1) – Signature of I/O (PW 22),
(E) DEFENCE EXHIBITS: - Ext. A – Arrest Memo of accused Sultan Uddin, Ext. A(1) – Signature of I/O (PW 21), Ext. B – Interrogation chart of accused Hussain Ahmed, Ext. B (1)– Interrogation chart of accused Hifjur Rahman, Ext. B (2)- Interrogation chart of accused Raju Ahmed, Ext. B (3)- Interrogation chart of accused Sultan Uddin, Ext. B (4)- Interrogation chart of accused Selim Uddin, Ext. B (5)- Interrogation chart of accused Mumin Uddin, Ext. B (6)- Interrogation chart of accused Kamal Hussain, Ext. B (7)- Interrogation chart of accused Babul Mian, Ext B(8)- Interrogation chart of accused Rajani Talukder,
(F) COURT EXHIBITS: -
M.Ext.1 – mobile set, exhibited by PW 1 M.Ext.2 – Bag containing seized money, M.Ext.3 – seized pant of deceased Naj, M.Ext.4 – Big Pistol, M.Ext.5 – Small Pistol ( Air Gun like pistol), M.Ext.6 – Ammunition (one cartridge),
83
M.Ext.7 – Knife having multiple tools M.Ext.8 – Wearing apparels, M.Ext.9 – Mobile set seized vide Ext vide Ext 10, M.Ext.9(1) –Wrapping white paper of material Ext 9, M.Ext.10 – School bag seized vide Ext 10,
(G) EXHIBITS PRODUCED BY WITNESSES: - NIL.
(Shri K. Choudhuy), Sessions Judge, Karimganj.