Calcutta High Court
Pallab Mukherjee And Ors. Etc. vs The State Of West Bengal on 5 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ4682, 2006 CRI. L. J. 4682, 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 426 (CAL), 2006 (2) CALCRILR 555, (2007) 2 EASTCRIC 203, (2007) 2 CAL HN 420
JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J.
1. The learned Sessions Judge, 3rd Bench of the City Sessions Court, Kolkata in a lengthy trial after examining 77 witnesses for the prosecution and after bringing several documents and materials on record as exhibits, ultimately convicted all the five appellants on 14-12-1991 under Sections 365/120B, 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and appellant Debasish Banerjee was also convicted separately under Section 384 of the IPC in connection with Sessions Trial No. 2 of June. 1989 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 14 of 1988 which arose out of G.R. Case No. 3241 of 1988 relating to Park Street P.S. Case No. 631 dated 17th October, 1988.
2. All the five appellants were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also other substantive sentences for different offences for which they were all convicted.
Appellants Pallab Mukherjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai @ Bhoda preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1992 on 31st January, 1992 while Debashish Banerjee and Bijan Barua preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1992 on 12th February, 1992 challenging their conviction and sentence and we have taken both the appeals together for disposal by this judgment.
3. The prosecution case as aptly observed by the learned Trial Judge reminds us of a story taken from a thriller.
4. Anurag Agarwal @ Maltu was the son of P.W. 3 and he was residing in the custody of his grandfather Debilal Agarwal P.W. 6 at 6C, Middle ton Street, Kolkata. From 12th October, 1988 during absence of Debilal Agarwal when father of Anurag was at the Kolkata residence, Anurag leaving his residence did not come back. Since search of Anurag at all known places yielded no result, a missing diary was lodged at Park Street P.S. and a similar application was also filed before the Missing Persons Squad, Lalbazar. On and from 14th October, 1988 P.W. 3 father of Anurag started receiving phone calls from a person disclosing himself as Mr. Gupta demanding money for the release of Anurag and on 15th October, 1988 to get release of Anurag after consulting with friends and well-wishers Rs. 80,000/- was sent as directed by 'Mr. Gupta' over phone near Basusree Cinema, Kolkata. On 15th October, 1988 the money was taken by an errand boy and as per promise of 'Mr. Gupta' wrist watch of Anurag was handed over, but, Anurag did not come.
5. On 17th October, 1988 in consultation with Debilal Agarwal. P.W. 3 lodged the written complaint with Park Street P.S.
6. After 17th October, 1988 till 4th November, 1988 telephone calls were received from 'Mr. Gupta' demanding more money and ultimately through bargaining the final amount was settled at Rs. 5,000/- and under the advise of the police officer who already took charge of the investigation 'Mr. Gupta' was informed to collect money near Kalighat Temple on 4th November, 1988.
7. As per arrangement with 'Mr. Gupta' over phone and as per advise of the police officer a packet containing some torn pieces of paper was thrown in a dustbin in front of Kalighat Temple at Kolkata and while picking that packet from the dustbin a man was arrested by the plain dress police personnel and on interrogation that man disclosed his name as Debasish Banerjee.
8. After arrest of Debasish Banerjee and after thorough interrogation of said Debasish Banerjee investigating officer arrested Bijon Barua a friend of Debasish Banerjee and came to learn that Anurag was brought to a deserted godown at Salkia under P.S. Golabari in the district of Howrah and that deserted go down was near the salt godown belonging to the Central Government and it was further disclosed that Anurag was already murdered at the night between 13th and 14th October, 1988 and his dead body was thrown in the Ganges which was just beside the salt godown.
9. Debasish Banerjee during his detention was produced before a learned Metropolitan Magistrate where he gave a detail confessional statement disclosing part by part the entire episode starting from kidnapping of Anurag who was a boy of 14 years age, claiming of ransom from his guardian, receipt of money, taking of Anurag to the godown of Salkia, murder of Anurag and ultimately throwing of the dead body of Anurag in the Ganges. Debasish Banerjee in his confessional statement also disclosed involvement of Bijon Barua, Pallab Mukherjee, Ashok Rai and Gopal Sarkar in the conspiracy behind kidnapping of Anurag, his detention at the godown, his murder at the godown and finally, removal of his dead body in the Ganges.
10. Getting a first hand idea about the entire episode, investigating officer and his assistants started the process of collecting evidence and in the course of investigation Bijan Barua, Pallab Mukherjee. Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai were arrested and out of them, both Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai gave confessional statement before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. During investigation, investigating officer examined several witnesses who in their turn gave statement alleging taking of Anurag from Kolkata to Howrah via Chandpal Launch Jetty, detention of Anurag at the godown of one Dixit & Company, murder of Anurag in presence of all the five appellants by strangulation, removal of the dead body of Anurago keeping the same concealed in a gunny bag and throwing of the same in the Ganges, presence of the appellants with Anurag on 13th October, 1988, recovery of garments of Anurag from the house of Bijon Barua; recovery of camera, one goggles and one phial of medicine of Anurag at the instance of the appellants, holding of meeting amongst the appellants before kidnapping of Anurag at Howrah Station, seizure of one sandal of Debasish from the side of the Ganges near the salt godown, signature of appellant Gopal on the register kept by the salt godown for entry into the godown area, identification of the wearing apparels of Anurag by the tailor, seizure of incriminating articles like pathedene, cellotape etc. from Debasish Banerjee and witnessing of presence of Anurag in the company of Bijon and Debasish prior to 12th October, 1988.
11. Investigating officer and his assistants during investigation also made several seizure lists in respect of wearing apparels of Anurag recovered from the possession of Bijo Barua, several incriminating articles recovered from the possession of Debasish Banerjee, regarding recovery of camera allegedly disposed of by Debasish, Pallab and Bijon to one Aru Das, recovery of goggles of Anurag from the house of Gopal Sarkar, recovery of medicine of Anurag from the house of Pallab Mukherjee, register of the salt go-down, recovery of sandal of Debasish Banerjee etc. Investigating Officer also collected in course of investigation footprint of Debasish Banerjee and handwriting of Gopal Sarkar and also produced report of expert in this regard. Investigating Officer also seized one gold chain, ring of Anurag from the godown of Dixit & Company which were kept concealed under the earth at the instance of the appellants.
12. Investigating Officer also arranged for holding T.I. parade of the appellants and reports of such T.I. parade were produced during trial along with confessional statements of appellant Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai.
13. After completion of investigation and on examination of about 76 witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet after being satisfied from the statement of witnesses and on examination of several documents that all the appellants before 12th 1988 conspired with each other regarding kidnapping of Anurag and with that ulterior design, on 12th October, 1988 Anurag was kidnapped and thereafter his guardian was informed about ransom and finally Anurag was brought to Dixit & Company godown at Salkia, Howrah where all the appellants killed Anurag and finally, destroyed the evidence of murder by throwing the dead body in the Ganges and on such findings, charge-sheet was submitted against all the five appellants under Sections 365/120B, 384, 302/34 and 201/34 for their trial in open Court.
14. The learned Sessions Judge after framing of charges against the appellants recorded the statement of 77 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the learned Judge also exhibited at the instance of prosecution the missing diary lodged by P.W. 3, the FIR, plan of the place of occurrence, several seizure lists, report of handwriting expert, report on the footprint of Debasish Banerjee, report of T.I. parade of the appellants, three confessional statements of appellants Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai and also several materials collected during investigation and identified by the witnesses which included wearing apparels of Anurag, gold chain and ring of Anurag, camera, goggles and phial of medicine of Anurag, different articles seized from Debasish Banerjee etc.
15. The learned Sessions Judge in his lengthy judgment discussed meticulously all the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and he also recorded the submissions of both prosecution and the appellants and thereafter the learned Judge came to the firm conclusion that all the appellants entered into a conspiracy in the matter of kidnapping Anurag from his guardian for ransom and as a part of that conspiracy, Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua took the leading role in kidnapping Anurag on 12th October, 1988 and it was Debasish Banerjee who in the name of Mr. Gupta demanded ransom and, in fact, accepted money as ransom and thereafter Anurag as a part of conspiracy was brought to Dixit & Company godown at Salkia. Howrah and there between the night of 13th and 14th October, 1988 Anurag was murdered by strangulation by all the appellants and thereafter his body was thrown in the Ganges.
16. The learned Sessions Judge to reach his conclusion regarding the part played by the appellants behind the entire conspiracy which culminated in the murder of Anurag and removal of his dead body considered the prosecution evidence stage by stage in the following manner:
The learned Judge with reference to the deposition of P.W. 3 and the GD entry of P.W. 3 and his FIR dated 17th October, 1988 was satisfied that Anurag was taken from his house on 12th October, 1988 as alleged by prosecution;
The learned Judge with reference to the statement of P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 was satisfied that between 14th October, 1988 and 4th November, 1988 one 'Mr. Gupta' gave several telephone calls for ransom and according to the arrangement of 'Mr. Gupta' on 4th November, 1988 P.W. 3 and others came near Kalighat Temple;
The learned Judge with reference to the statement of P.W. 3, P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 accepted the prosecution case that on 4th November, 1988 Debasish Banerjee who was none else than 'Mr. Gupta' was arrested near the Kalighat Temple and in this context the learned Judge accepting the statement of these witnesses along with statement of P.W. 34 and P.W. 35 accepted the prosecution case that some incriminating articles like pathedene, cellotape etc. were recovered from the bag of Debasish Banerjee on 4th November, 1988 soon after his arrest near the Kalighat Temple. The learned Judge also relied on the seizure lists prepared in this connection;
The learned Judge with reference to the statement of P.W. 8 and P.W. 36 was satisfied that both the witnesses found Anurag in the company of Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua on 12th October, 1988 at Chandpal on their way to Howrah which was just on the other side of the Ganges and in this context, the learned Judge considered the T.I. parade of both Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua in which P.W. 18 and P.W. 36 took part;
The learned Judge with reference to the evidence of P.W. 17, P.W. 21 and P.W. 22 accepted the prosecution case that Debasish Banerjee, Bijon Barua and Pallab Mukherjee handed over camera belonging to Anurag to P.W. 17. The learned Judge on the basis of evidence of P.W. 19, P.W. 20 and P.W. 24 accepted the prosecution case that Debasish Banerjee had acquaintance with Bijon Barua;
The learned Judge also referred to the evidence of P.W. 23. P.W. 25 and P.W. 26 in the matter of acceptance of prosecution case that the wearing apparels of Anurag were seized from the exclusive possession of Bijon Barua soon after his arrest;
The learned Judge accepted the statement of P.W. 43 along with identification of Gopal Sarkar by this P.W. during T.I. parade to support the prosecution allegation that prior to the incident all the five appellants conspired with each other in the matter of kidnapping of Anurag;
The learned Judge placing his full reliance on the testimony of P.W. 4 Bhagabati Sonkar, the darwan of the Dixit & Company godown and his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. given before the Metropolitan Magistrate found much truth in the prosecution case that Anurag was kept detained in the godown of Dixit & Company from 12th October, 1988 and thereafter he was murdered inside that godown and his dead body concealed in a gunny bag was ultimately thrown in the Ganges by all the five appellants and to support this part of the prosecution case, the learned Judge took into consideration the statement of P.W. 41, P.W. 52, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61;
The learned Judge with reference to the statement of P.W. 72, P.W. 75 and also with reference to the statement of I.O. P.W. 77 came to the conclusion that sandal left by Debasish Banerjee by the side of the Ganges near the salt godown Salkia, Howrah, in fact, belonged to Debasish Banerjee and appellant Gopal Sarkar signed his name in the register of the salt godown to have entry into the premises of the said godown with father appellants and Anurag in the afternoon of 13th October, 1988;
17. Alter considering the circumstantial evidence as indicated above divulged through different witnesses at different stage of investigation along with supporting documents and materials, the learned Judge in his considered view found the entire prosecution case reasonably and logically acceptable and the learned Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that all the circumstances coming through the prosecution evidence both oral and documentary formed a complete chain wherefrom the only irresistible conclusion was that all the appellants pursuant to their criminal conspiracy, after taking Anurag from his lawful guardian kept him detained at the Dixit & Companies go-down near Salkia, Howrah and killed him on 13th October, 1988 and thereafter at the midnight of 13th October, 1988 disposed of the dead body by throwing the same in the Ganges. The learned Judge found additional support regarding his above conclusion regarding the prosecution allegation against all the appellants from the long confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee which according to the learned Judge was voluntary and which was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. P.S. Dutta P.W. 54 after complying with all the requirements of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Judge also relied on the confessioal statement of Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai.
18. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge after considering the prosecution evidence which included the confessional statements of three appellants, Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai and their Identification during T.I. parade accepted the prosecution case rejecting all the points taken by the appellants during trial and thereby recorded his order of conviction and sentence against all the appellants.
19. We have already recorded that Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1992 Jointly challenging their conviction and sentence while the remaining three appellants namely Pallab Mukherjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai @ Bhoda preferred Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1992. Mr. Mitra represented Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai at the time of hearing of these appeals and Mr. Bhattacharya represented Bijon Barua while Mr. S.S. Roy has represented Ashok Rai @ Bhoda before us.
20. Mr. Mitra has made his oral submissions as well as submitted written notes of arguments and from the oral submissions as well as from the written notes of argument of Mr. Mitra we find that Mr. Mitra on behalf of his clients has wanted to highlight these following points in order to prove his case that the entire prosecution allegations against Debasish Banerjee as well as accused Gopal Sarkar and Pallab Mukherjee were totally baseless and without any legal foundation:
According to Mr. Mitra the starting of the prosecution case itself was highly doubtful, because, neither in the G.D. entry dated 13th October, 1988 nor in the subsequent complaint of P.W. 3 dated 17th October, 1988 there was any whisper of the presence of so called 'Mr. Gupta' and most surprisingly to note that no official seal of Park Street P.S. appeared anywhere on the com plaint received on 17th October, 1988. Mr. Mitra contends that nothing is available from record as to what action was taken from the police authority to trace out the missing boy between 13th October, 1988 and 16th October, 1988 and it is also significant to note that in spite of receipt of the petition of complaint on 17th October, 1988 and even after taking of charge of investigation by Detective Department, nothing noticeable progress was made till 4th November, 1988 and the mysterious silence on the part of de facto complainant, relatives of the missing boy and also on the part of the investigating agency during that period speaks a volume about the credibility of the entire prosecution case as sought to be built up against the appellants;
21. Mr. Mitra contends that according to prosecution the actual case against the appellants was unfolded only on and from 4th November, 1988 with the alleged arrest and detentloon of appellant Debasish Banerjee and according to prosecution Debasish Banerjee was arrested in front of Kallghat Temple and thereafter, on Interrogation of Debasish he gave the details of their operation and he also divulged the name of other appellants. Mr. Mitra contends that if the prosecution case regarding alleged arrest and detention of Debasish Banerjee on 4th November, 1988 itself canot be believed and accepted, prosecution case has no leg to stand upon. Mr. Mitra contends that the evidence of P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 together with P.W. 34 and P.W. 35 if considered dispassionately, one will get a clear Idea that all those witnesses gave their statements as desired by the investigating officer to manufacture a story to justify the detention of Debasish Banerjee to prepare false evidence against Debasish and other appellants. Mr. Mitra contends that it is very significant to note that at no stage of investigation Debasish Banerjee was placed for identification by these witnesses and this is sufficient to substantiate the points of the appellants that Debasish ESanerjee was arrested and detained from some other place and certainly not from Kalighat Temple and under a situation which the prosecution wanted to build up to give an air of credibility to the otherwise weak prosecution case;
22. Mr. Mitra contends that evidence of P.W. 18 and P.W. 86 to substantiate the prosecution allegation that Debasish Bancrjee along with another appellant was found in the company of the missing boy on 12th October, 1988 at Chandpai Ghat is simply a cock and bull story and it would be evident from several contradictions noted in the statement of P.W. 18 and P.W. 36;
23. Mr. Mitra contends that the endeavour of prosecution to establish its case that Debasish Banerjee, Pallab Mukherjee and other appellants were found involved in the matter of disposing of a camera of deceased Anurag through the evidence of P.W. 17, P.W. 21 and P.W. 22 and also by their alleged identification of the appellants through T.I. parade would also end in futile exercise if the contradictions noted in the statement of those witnesses are considered seriously. Mr. Mitra submits that curiously enough, investigating officer did not examine the tea stall vendor at whose shop the deal was finalized and it is also interesting to note that P.W. 17 kept the receipt allegedly granted by Debasish Banerjee intact only to facilitate, the investigation of the case.
24. Mr. Mitra submits that the star witnesses for the prosecution to implicate the appellants are found to be P.W. 4 Bhagabati Sonkar, man of a dubious character, P.W. 53 Jagannath Mali and P.W. 61 Sudama Prasad an alleged motor mechanic and also some seizure lists prepared in connivance with these witnesses to implicate the appellants in this false case. Mr. Mitra contends that P.W. 4 Bhagabati Sonkar by no stretch of imagination can be considered to be a credible witness when we examine his deposition in Court and also his statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and when we notice the undisputed fact that he was given a charge of such a godown of Dixit & Company which was closed long back and he was engaged without any salary and his source of livelihood was dealing in illicit liquor. Mr. Mitra contends that if we assess the statement of these P.Ws. independently, we would find that no Court of law would be eager to accept their statements as credible and trustworthy and if their depositions are thrown away, the entire prosecution case falls like a pack of cards;
25. Mr. Mitra contends that the story as put forward by I.O. and other police officers regarding seizure of a sandal of Debasish Banerjee with the help of prosecution witnesses and to establish from the report of the expert that footprint of Debasish Banerjee matched with the footprint collected from the said seized sandal is completely a manufactured story when we consider that a sandal remained by the side of the Ganges intact even for one month after the same was left over by its owner withstanding the regular high tides of the river;
26. Mr. Mitra submits that the learned Trial Judge heavily relied on the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee to support the prosecution case, but, from the undisputed fact it was very much clear that Debasish Banerjee was in police custody in connection with several cases and in that background, the learned Judge should have considered the basic legal question as to whether the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee was at. all vouluntary or not, but, unfortunately this aspect was totally ignored by the learned Judge and the learned Judge did not consider at all whether the confessional statement was free from any coercion or allurement and at the same time, the facts disclosed in a confessional statement must be corroborated from other evidence produced by the prosecution and In this case when the confessional statement itself was doubtful and when there was no corroboration of such confessional statement, the learned Judge was not justified in placing his unqualified reliance on such confessional statement to sustain the order of conviction;
27. Mr. Mitra contends that so far Gopal Sarkar and Pallab Mukherjee are concerned their names mainly transpired from the statement of P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 and for the reasons already urged, such evidence does not appear to be convincing and satisfactory. Mr. Mitra contends that the recovery of goggles from the possession of Gopal Sarkar and phial of medicine from the possession of Pallab Mukherjee cannot be accepted at all since the witnesses supporting such recovery were tutored witnesses of the investigating officer as it is apparent from their cross-examination.
28. Mr. Mitra, therefore, concludes that so far evidence on record is concerned the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the entire evidence was fabricated and also manufactured by the Detective Department of Lalbazar only to implicate some innocent persons since the investigating team of Detective Department could not establish any case against the real culprits and the very fact of missing of Anurag from his residence and his subsequent disappearance was shrouded with mystery and the Investigating team being unable-to remove the veil from the mystery over disappearance of Anurag, only to establish their credibility before the society manufactured evidence, by collecting some tutored witnesses and by manipulating official record and thereby submitted charge sheet against the appellants and for all these reasons, the learned Judge was not justified in placing his reliance on such evidence to substantiate the order of conviction and sentence.
29. Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya appearing for the appellant Bijon Barua who has been in detention since 4th November, 1988 by and large adopted the submissions of Mr. Mitra to challenge the foundation of the prosecution allegation. Mr. Bhattacharya while challenging the specific evidence brought on record to substantiate the case against this appellant has put forward the following points for our consideration:
Mr. Bhattacharya contends that even if we give any credibility to the statement of P.W. 19, P.W. 20 and P.W. 24 who as neighbour of Bijon Barua deposed about his acquaintance with Debasish Banerjee, nothing has come out from their deposition to hold conclusively that Bijon Barua ever entered into any criminal conspiracy in the matter of kidnapping of Anurag and if this part of the prosecution case cannot be proved, Bijon Barua cannot be convicted either for murder of Anurag or for removal of his dead body;
Mr. Bhattacharya contends that through the evidence of P.W. 43 Gautam Ghosh prosecution sought to establish the allegation of criminal conspiracy, but, taking the evidence of P.W. 43 along with the report of the T.I.P. prepared by P.W. 59, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, one will have an impression that P.W. 43 was a mere chance witness and a serious allegation like criminal conspiracy cannot stand on the statement of such a chance witness;
Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the alleged seizure of the wearing apparels of Anurag from the possession of Bijon Barua cannot be taken into consideration at all since investigating officer could not produce any statement of Bijon Barua-recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act pursuant to which such alleged recovery was made and, that apart, from the statement of P.W. 23, P.W. 25, P.W. 26 and P.W. 71 it Is crystal clear that the recovery story is highly doubtful and hence, no incriminating article was ever seized from the possession of Bijon Barua so as to implicate him in this case;
Mr. Bhattacharya contends that on examination of the Judgment of the learned Trial Court it would be very much clear that according to the learned Trial Court, the most damaging evidence against appellant Bijon Barua was the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee, but, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that without having any other independent or corroborative evidence, the learned Judge was not legally Justified to hold conclusively that Bijon Barua was a party to the criminal conspiracy and he also took part in the murder of Anurag and In the removal of his dead body solely on the basis of confessional statement of a co-accused and, that apart, the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee was never put to Bijon Barua during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.;
Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the deposition of P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 cannot be relied on at all for the reasons already stated by Mr. Mitra and hence, to avoid repetition he only submits that relying on the testimony of such witnesses it would be highly risky to convict a man for the offence of murder and thereby sending him to suffer imprisonment for life.
30. Mr. S.S. Roy along with Ms. Minoti Gomes represented the case of remaining appellant Ashok Rai @ Bhoda. Mr. Roy contends that if the statement of P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 along with P.W. 43 cannot be accepted, there remains nothing against this appellant save and except the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee and the appellant himself. Mr. Roy submits that the confessional statement of appellant Ashok Rai @ Bhoda was not voluntary and appellant himself retracted from the same during trial and such retracted confessional statement alone cannot be the basis of conviction in law and, at the same time, the confessional statement of co-accused also cannot be taken note of to substantiate an order of conviction unless there is other independent and corroborative evidence to support the prosecution allegation. Mr. Roy, therefore, submits that having regard to the submissions of both Mr. Mitra and Mr. Bhattacharya, challenging the very foundation of the prosecution case, this Court of appeal should consider whether the evidence on record was sufficient to support the order of conviction against these appellants as recorded by the learned trial Judge.
31. Mr. Safiullah, the learned P.P. While opposing both the appeals preferred by all the appellants seriously refuted the points taken by Mr. Mitra, Mr. Bhattacharya and Mr. S.S. Roy. Mr. Safiullah submits that prosecution case as revealed initially from the GD entry and the written complaint and thereafter in course of investigation indicated how Debasish Banerjee as kingpin of the entire episode in active connivance with Bijon Barua hoodwinked a tender aged boy alluring in the name of providing him a chance to appear in a TV serial with the sole purpose of bringing him out from his legal guardian and with the ulterior design of his detention to press his legal guardian for payment of handsome money as ransom. Mr. Safiullah submits that Debasish Banerjee as it appears from the statement of P.W. 3 and others in the name of 'Mr. Gupta' made contact with guardian of Anurag and compelled them to part with Rs. 80,000/- on the false assurance of returning Anurag and ultimately when under the impulse of greed Debasish Banerjee came out openly to take the sum of Rs. 5,000/- as demanded by him over phone, plain dress police officers arrested him and after his arrest on 4th November, 1988 it was disclosed that the fatal mischief was already done and Anurag was already murdered by Debasish Banerjee and other appellants.
32. Mr. Safiullah submits that the investigating team up to 4th November, 1988 since the receipt of the missing diary and formal complaint could not make any headway in the detention of the culprits as the nature of offence was somewhat new and only with the arrest of Debasish Banerjee when he came to collect money and on interrogation of Debasish Banerjee, investigating agency got detail of the operation through the statement of Debasish Banerjee.
33. Mr. Safiullah contends that considering the unusual nature of the allegation made against unknown persons for the act of kidnapping, the investigation could not proceed in the usual manner and for this reason alone, the result of investigation and the veracity of the prosecution case probably cannot be questioned as done by the learned advocate for the appellants.
34. Mr. Safiullah submits that kidnapping of Anurag on 12th October, 1988 has never been challenged and so also his physical extinction from this world. Mr. Safiullah contends that payment of money as ransom on 15th October, 1988 and receipt of wrist-watch of Anurag has been satisfactorily proved by P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and these witnesses along with P.W. 6 were present when on 4th November, 1988 Debasish Banerjee was arrested near Kalighat Temple and arrest of Debasish Banerjee was also supported by P.W. 34 and P.W. 35 and it is significant to note that Debasish Banerjee was not only arrested on that date, but, from his possession incriminating articles like cellotape, pathedene etc. were recovered in presence of witnesses.
35. Mr. Safiullah submits that from the statement of P.W. 43 we find that much before kidnapping of Anurag, appellants held conference to chalk out their plan and this holding of conference and chalking out plan fully corroborated the prosecution allegation of criminal conspiracy against all the appellants. Mr. Safiullah submits that the second part of the prosecution case took place on the other side of the river Ganges, to be more specific, in Salkia, Howrah and journey of Anurag from Chandpal Ghat towards Howrah was witnessed by P.W. 18 and P.W. 36 and Anurag at that time was in the company of Debasish Banerjee, Bijon Barua and others.
36. Mr. Safiullah submits that from the statement of P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 in particular, prosecution was successful to establish that Anurag was detained in the deserted godown of Dixit & Company and from the statement of P.W. 4, it came on the surface how Anurag was killed on 13th October, 1988 inside the godown and this statement of P.W. 4 gets corroboration from subsequent recovery of gold chain and ring of Anurag from inside the godown and concealed under the earth and such recovery was made at the instance of the appellants.
37. Mr. Safiullah contends that from the statement of P.W. 4 and P.W. 61 and corroborated by other witnesses of the salt go-down of the Central Government it was established that Anurag was found in the company of the appellants at the afternoon of 13th October, 1988 and thereafter a gunny bag was carried by the appellants and after scaling the walls of the salt godown, the appellants brought the gunny bag and threw the same in the Ganges and it was important to note that this occurred at the midnight of 13th and 14th October, 1988 and since then there was no trace of Anurag anywhere.
38. Mr. Safiullah contends that the recovery of camera, goggles and medicine phial of Anurag, the recovery of garments of Anurag from the house of Bijon Barua, recovery of Cellotape and other incirminating articles from the possession of Debasish Banerjee, the statement of owner of the medicine shop regarding purchase of chloroform by Debasish Banerjee, the statement of pan shop owner P.W. 22 regarding presence of Anurag prior to 12th October, 1988 in the company of Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua all taken together established a complete chain of circumstances that Anurag for the last time on 12th October, 1988 was seen in the company of Debasish Banerjee and Bijon Barua and since thereafter he was not found anywhere and taking the statement of P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 along with recovery of incriminating articles from the possession of the appellants, the conclusion would follow that Anurag was killed in the manner as deposed by P.W. 4 and his dead body was disposed of in the manner as testified by P.W. 4 and P.W. 61.
39. Mr. Safiullah contends that there is no dispute that there was no eyewitness to support the prosecution case that Anurag was taken by Debasish Banerjee and Bijan Barua from his house and likewise there is no eyewitness that Anurag was killed by these appellants and thereafter his dead body was thrown in the Ganges, but, if we try to appreciate the manner of execution of the entire operation by the appellants under the leadership of Debasish Banerjee, we shall notice that the plan was so precise that it was not possible for prosecution to produce any eyewitness and, that apart, the murder of Anurag took place in a deserted godown where P.W. 4 was the only person present in connection with his illegal business.
40. Mr. Safiullah contends that considering the place where Anurag was murdered and considering the fact of recovery of gold chain and ring of Anurag, the credibility of P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 cannot be called in question by any man of ordinary prudence and, that apart, the recovery of camera, goggles, the recovery of wearing apparels of Anurag and also the recovery of sandal of Debasish Banerjee from the side of the Ganges, all taken together presented a complete chain of circumstances leading to conclusion that appellants were involved behind the murder of Anurag.
41. Mr. Safiullah submits that in this particular case Debasish Banerjee gave a confessional statement containing more than 65 pages and from the statement of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement and on examination of the confessional statement itself, there is no scope to raise any question challenging the voluntariness of the said statement and, in fact, neither before the trial Court nor before this Court anything was raised challenging in question the confessional statement of appellant Debasish Banerjee.
42. Mr. Safiullah contends that Debasish Banerjee not only confessed his guilt by disclosing the conspiracy by narrating the name of all the appellants taking part in the conspiracy, by mentioning the role of each of the appellant behind the murder and removal of the dead body of Anurag, but, also by leading the investigating team in the matter of recovery of incriminating articles as indicated earlier and this recovery amply lends support to the fact that Debasish Banerjee out of own volition and without being pressurized from any corner and not being misled by any promise or allurement, but, out of genuine repentance gave the confessional statement wherefrom he not only implicated himself, but, clearly stated the involvement of the remaining appellants.
43. Mr. Safiullah contends that from the prosecution witnesses we find that role of each of the appellant behind the conspiracy as well as behind the murder and removal of the dead body was proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Mr. Safiullah submits that involvement of Bijan Barua is evident from the statement of P.W. 43 Gautam Ghosh and his prior acquaintance with Debasish Banerjee who was, in fact, the kingpin of the entire game plan was established from P.W. 19, P.W. 20 and P.W. 24. Mr. Safiullah drawing our attention to the evidence of P.W. 23, P.W.25, P.W. 26 and P.W. 71 contends that soon after arrest of Bijan Barua and al his instance the weaning apparels of Anurag were recovered from the house of Bijan Barua and from such a hidden place which was within the exclusive knowledge of Bijan Barua. Mr. Safiullah submits that P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 deposed about involvement of Bijan Barua in the murder of Anurag and also in the matter of disposal of his dead body. Mr. Safiullah contends apart from these witnesses when we consider the statement of Debasish Banerjee given before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, we find no scope to raise any doubt about the involvement of Bijan Barua.
44. Mr. Safiullah contends that so far Pallab Mukherjee is concerned apart from P.W. 43. from statements of P.W. 17, P.W. 20 and P.W. 21, who deposed about disposal of the camera of Anurag to P.W. 17, we find sufficient evidence to establish the prosecution case that Pallab Mukherjee also took an active participant and he was member of the conspiracy. Mn Safiullah contends that evidence of P.W. 4, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 is also relevant in this context.
45. As regards appellant Ashok Rai @ Bhoda, Mr. Safiullah has drawn our attention to the statement of P.W. 4, P.W. 53, P.W. 61 and contends that Ashok Rai @ Bhoda was, in fact, in charge of the godown for the limited purpose of detaining Anurag under the instruction of Debasish Banerjee and this appellant in particular was responsible for arranging murder of Anurag and also for disposal of the dead body along with other appellants and this appellant during investigation confessed his guilt by giving a voluntary statement to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
46. Mr. Safiullah contends that involvement of appellant Gopal Sarkar is found from the statement of P.W. 4, P.W. 43, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 and, that apart, from the seizure of the register maintained by the salt godown and from the report of the handwriting expert it was available that he entered his name in the register to facilitate entry of the appellants by the side of the Ganges through the salt godown for the purpose of disposal of the dead body and, that apart, this appellant also gave confessional statement during investigation.
47. Mr. Safiullah submits that from the statement of P.W. 3 to P.W. 12 except P.W. 4 we get corroboration regarding the first part of the prosecution allegation as to the kidnapping of Anurag, claim of ransom by Debasish Banerjee in the name of 'Mr. Gupta', actual payment of Rs. 80,000/- and finally, regarding arrest of Debasish Banerjee on 4th November, 1988 while making attempt to pick up the packet thrown in the dustbin near Kalighat Temple and we also get from these witnesses the recovery of incriminating articles from the possession of Debasish Banerjee and these witnesses were supported by P.W. 34 and P.W. 35 apart from the investigating officer P.W. 77.
48. Mr. Safiullah contends that the second and most absorbing part of the prosecution case started from arrest of Debasish Banerjee on 4th November, 1988 and which culminated in the submission of charge against all the appellants by the investigating officer after collection of evidence through witnesses and documents.
49. Mr. Safiullah submits that Debasish Banerjee first of all gave a long confessional statement which was voluntary in nature and each aspect of the voluntary confessional statement gets corroboration from different witnesses who in their turn supported each part of the prosecution allegation. Mr. Safiullah submits that P.W. 18, P.W. 36, P.W. 43, P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 and above all P.W. 4 fully supported the involvement of Debasish Banerjee along with other appellants behind the murder of Anurag and disposal of his dead body.
50. Mr. Safiullah submits that recovery of camera, goggles and phial of medicine of Anurag, recovery of garments of Anurag and subsequent identification of the same by the tailor and the guardian of Anurag, statement of witnesses indicating acquaintance of Debasish Banerjee with Bijan Barua should be considered in the background of statement of witnesses who were relevant for establishment of the guilt of Debasish Banerjee.
51. Mr. Safiullah submits that involvement of Pallab Mukherjee and Ashok Rai was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the same set of witnesses as indicated above and in such background, the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai@ Bhoda just completed the chain of circumstances to lead us to only one conclusion excluding any other conclusion that all the appellants were involved in the conspiracy of kidnapping, behind murder of Anurag and disposal of his dead body.
52. At the time of hearing of these appeals, we took the opportunity of examining the entire prosecution evidence which included statement of 77 witnesses, three confessional statements of which the statement of Debasish Banerjee was the longest one, several seizure lists prepared during investigation, hand writing expert's report, report of the footprint expert, report of the FSL and also the GD entry dated 13th October, 1988 as well as the written complaint dated 17th October, 1988.
53. We have considered submissions of all the learned advocates who appeared for the appellants and also submissions of Mr. Safiullah who represented the State. From the nature of evidence produced by the prosecution in this particular case and having regard to the prosecution allegations unfolded during investigation and during trial, one is bound to note that the present prosecution case was somewhat different and complicated.
54. A tender aged boy residing in the custody of his grandfather in the heart of the city of Kolkata had ample opportunity to interact with outsider in course of his journey from residence to school and back and it was not at all unnatural or improbable that capitalizing the fancy and imagination of a tender aged boy, any man with superior intelligence and maturity might act upon such tender mind and exactly that happened in the case of unfortunate Anurag.
55. Anurag was allured in the name of giving him opportunity to appear in a TV serial called 'Safed Dhage' and Debasish Banerjee, as alleged, introduced himself as the director of the serial and at the same time Bijan Barua was introduced as the cameraman. Undoubtedly, there is no evidence to substantiate this part of the prosecution story, but, we get from missing diary dated 13th October, 1988 and the written complaint dated 17th October, 1988 that on 12th October, 1988 Anurag had left his house and subsequently it was detected that he had left with a small bag containing some of his garments and other articles for his use. From 12th October, 1988 Anurag was not traceable and from 15th October, 1988 onward, his father P.W. 3 started receiving telephone calls from one 'Mr. Gupta' claiming money and Rs. 80,000/- was paid and in return, a wristwatch was delivered to the messengers who carried the money. On 17th October, 1988 formal complaint was lodged seeking police intervention, meanwhile, telephone call used to come and such call came till 4th November, 1988. With the intervention of the Detective Department, which took the charge of investigation, a trap was laid, when it was negotiated on behalf of the guardian of Anurag that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be paid near Kalighat Temple and under the instruction of the investigating officer, a packet containing wastepaper was made ready for drop in the dustbin nearby Kalighat Temple where the telephone caller proposed to come to collect the packet from the dustbin.
56. On 4th November, 1988 when P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and others along with police officials and the investigating officer came to Kalighat Temple and as planned earlier they dropped the packet in the dustbin near the Kalighat Temple, Debasish Banerjee was arrested as he was about to pick up the packet from the dustbin.
57. We have examined the statement of P.W. 3, P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 in this context and having regard to their cross-examination, we do not notice anything to disbelieve the prosecution case that Debasish Banerjee was not arrested on 4-11-1988 near Kalighat Temple. With the arrest of Debasish Banerjee, for the first time, as it is clear from the statement of I.O., P.W. 77, a positive clue was available before the investigating team to unfold the mystery over disappearance of Anurag, but, unfortunately the clue was totally disappointing, since, Anurag was not found alive and even his dead body was not found anywhere.
58. After arrest of Debasish Banerjee and on interrogation of Debasish Banerjee, Bijan Barua was arrested on the same date from his house and on and from 4th November, 1988 investigating officer raided different places including the houses of Bijan Barua, the godown of Dixit & Company and made some important seizures which included seizure of chappal of Debasish Banerjee, seizure of camera from Bally, seizure of pant and shiri. of Anurag from the house of Bijan Barua. seizure of gold chain and ring of Anurag from the godown of Dixit & Company at the instance of Ashok Rai @ Bhoda, seizure of phial of medicine of Anurag from the house of Pallab Mukherjee and finally, seizure of goggles of Anurag from the house of Gopal Sarkar.
59. During investigation, Debasish Banerjee was produced before P.W. 54 P.S. Dutta, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for recording his statement and his confessional statement exhibit 32 was recorded on 22-111988 and 24-11-1988. Accused Ashok Rai @ Bhoda gave his confessional statement exhibit 35 on 28-11-1988 and similarly, after arrest of Gopal Sarkar on 24th February, 1989 he also gave confessional statement. Appellant Debasish Banerjee, Bijan Barua, Ashok Rai @ Bhoda were placed for T.I. parade and witness P.W. 43 Gautam who deposed about the conspiracy part identified these appellants on 6-12-1988 and again on 13-12-1988, witness Ashok Ojha, Josh Lai Basu and Bablu Banerjee identified Debasish Banerjee and Bijan Barua in connection with their statement that they noticed Anurag for the last time in the company of Debasish Banerjee and Bijan Barua on 12th October, 1988 at Chandpal Ghat. P.W. 4 Bhagabati Sonkar also gave statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
60. From the submissions of Mr. Mitra as well as Mr. Bhattacharya, we find that their attack against the prosecution case and their challenge against the conviction order mainly revolve around two basic aspects, first, the dubious prosecution case from the inception followed by unusual conduct of investigating officer not taking any effective step for investigation up to 4th November, 1988 and second, the falsehood in the statement of all the witnesses of the prosecution who deposed against the appellants supporting the criminal conspiracy part, supporting the alleged murder of Anurag and finally, disposal of his dead body.
61. We have already recorded at the beginning of our discussion that this particular case was a clear deviation from the usual criminal case and at the initial stage, when Anurag disappeared followed by claim of ransom over phone, the main consideration that arose in the mind of the guardians of Anurag was regarding the safety and security of Anurag coupled with the fact that guardians were very much eager to get back Anurag even at the cost of money and probably this was the only reason why the guardians with much hesitation submitted the written complaint on 17th October, 1988 and even the investigating team killed their time so that any clue could be obtained to trace out the victim and to rescue him from the hands of the criminals.
62. In the above background of prosecution case, frankly speaking, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants that the prosecution case was murky and the role of the investigating team was suspicious if not mysterious. It is very significant to record at this juncture that before us it was never argued on behalf of the appellants that there was no existence of Anurag prior to 12th October, 1988 or that Anurag never disappeared from his house or that Anurag was not murdered and his dead body was never traced. We find from the judgment of the trial Court that the learned advocate for the appellants before the trial Court made the non-recovery of the dead body of Anurag a major issue, but, the learned trial Judge with reference to a decision of the Apex Court observed that even without recovery of the dead body, from the circumstantial evidence alone, murder of a man can be established.
63. Thus, we reject the first contention of the appellants touching the starting of the prosecution case and the role of the investigating agency up to 4th November, 1988.
64. We have already discussed that P.W. 3, P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 in one voice along with P.W. 77, the investigating officer deposed before the trial Court that on 4th November, 1988 in their presence Debasish Banerjee was arrested and having regard to the phone call received by the guardians and having regard to the arrangement for coming near Kalighat Temple, the only conclusion is that the man disclosing himself as 'Mr. Gupta' was none, but, Debasish Banerjee who was arrested on 4th November, 1988 and on careful examination of the statement of these witnesses and with reference to their cross examination, we do not find anything to disbelieve the prosecution case that Debasish Banerjee was not arrested on 4th November, 1988.
65. The first point in favour of the prosecution case as highlighted through the statement of P.W. 18 and P.W. 36 was presence of Anurag in the Company of Debasish Banerjee and Bijan Barua on 12th October, 1988 at Chandpal Ghat and both the appellants were identified by these witnesses during T.I. parade and also at the time of their deposition before the trial Court.
66. The second point of the prosecution case was proved by P.W. 71 along with P.W. 23, P.W. 25 and P.W. 26 who proved the recovery of wearing apparels of Anurag from the exclusive possession of Bijan Barua.
67. The third point of the prosecution case was disposal of camera of Anurag by the appellants and also recovery of goggles and medicine of Anurag from the appellants Gopal Sarkar and Pallab Mukherjee respectively and on this point prosecution examined P.W. 17, P.W. 21 and P.W. 22 who again successfully identified Debasish Banerjee, Bijan Barua and Pallab Mukherjee during T.I. parade and also by P.W. 33, P.W. 45 and P.W. 46.
68. The 4th point of the prosecution case was examination of P.W. 4 along with his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. P.W. 53 and P.W. 61 along with recovery of the gold chain and ring of Anurag from the go-down of Dixit & Company at the instance of appellant Ashok Rai @ Bhoda. From the statement of these witnesses and also from the documents prosecution proved detention of Anurag in the salt godown, his presence in the company of the appellants seen for the last time after 12th October, 1988, his murder by strangulation and also disposal of his dead body.
69. The fifth point of the prosecution was recovery of the sandal of Debasish Banerjee from the bank of the river Ganges near the salt godown of Salkia, Howrah and matching of the footprint found on the sandal with that of physical footprint of Debasish Banerjee as certified by the expert and this point of prosecution was further strengthened from the seizure of the godown register and from the matching of the handwriting of Gopal Sarkar as appearing on the said register with that of his specimen handwriting as certified by the handwriting expert.
70. To prove the acquaintance between Debasish Banerjee and Bijan Barua prosecution examined P.W. 14, P.W. 19 and P.W. 20 in particular and P.W. 13 deposed that he found Anurag in the company of Debasish Banerjee before the occurrence.
71. Prosecution examined P.W. 43 to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy and this witness during T.I. parade sue cessfully identified accused Gopal Sarkar as the person present at the Coffee shop at Howrah Station along with other appellants much before the actual occurrence.
72. We find from record that apart from the witnesses and documents disclosed above prosecution finally banked upon the confessional statements of Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai to establish its case against all the appellants.
73. We have stated that the second ground of attack against the prosecution case from the side of the appellants has been regarding the credibility of all these witnesses and also the veracity of the documents on which prosecution relied on before the trial Court to substantiate different charges against the appellants, in other words, while challenging the very starting of the prosecution case, the learned advocates for the appellants were very much vocal on the point that investigating team under the leadership of P.W. 77 procured the tutored witnesses and fabricated the documents with their help to establish the prosecution case and the learned Trial Judge without raising any question accepted the entire prosecution case as true and genuine.
74. We have already stated that from the trend of cross-examination of different prosecution witnesses and also from the submissions made before us at the time of hearing, we do not find any substantial point from the side of the appellants to challenge that Anurag was never kidnapped and that Anurag was never murdered and that his dead body was never thrown in the Ganges. In fact, these serious allegations of the prosecution were not touched by the learned advocates for the appellants during their submissions. On the contrary, it was the persistent endeavour of the learned advocates for the appellants to convince us that there was no detail given in the GD entry about 'Mr. Gupta' so also in the written complaint and it was also urged that why the investigating team did not take any step for recovery of Anurag on receipt of GD entry on 13th October. 1988 till 4th November, 1988.
75. These submissions of the appellants are without any basis and cannot be given any importance in view of the subsequent development of the prosecution case that on 13th October, 1988 in the evening Anurag was already killed and on the night between 13th and 14th October, 1988 his dead body was already disposed of, but, this fact was not within the knowledge of the investigating team and only when arrest of Debasish Banerjee and subsequent recovery of the incriminating articles, investigating team came to ascertain that Anurag was no longer there and even the body of Anurag was thrown in the Ganges and with the onerous task of establishing this fact, investigating team started the investigation and collected the witnesses to substantiate the prosecution charges.
76. After considering the prosecution evidence and submissions of the learned advocates for the appellants, we notice another interesting feature that the learned advocates for the appellants did not challenge the confessional statements of the appellants Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar or Ashok Rai and, in the fact, we are constrained to hold that when in this case confessional statement was given very much importance by the trial Court in sustaining the order of conviction it was expected and desirable that the learned advocates for the appellants would forward their submissions challenging their confessional statements.
77. We find that confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee unfolded the entire mystery behind the prosecution case and the recovery made by the investigating officer in between arrest of Debasish Banerjee and his confessional statement completely supported the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee and, that apart, when we take into consideration the confessional statement of Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai together, we find that from the confessional statements of these three appellants prosecution can certainly claim establishment of its case against all the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.
78. We are not oblivion of the basic legal requirement that before supporting an order of conviction, no Court of law should act upon the confessional statements alone to hold the accused persons guilty of the offence disclosed in such statement unless the material part of such statement gets corroboration from independent and convincing prosecution evidence.
79. The learned advocate for the appellants without touching the confessional statements straightway raised the question regarding credibility of different prosecution witnesses and also regarding the credibility of the documents to which those witnesses were a party. We have carefully considered this part of the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants along with the cross-examination of those witnesses who are mainly P.W. 4, P.W. 18, P.W. 36, P.W. 53, P.W. 61 and also P.W. 17. P.W. 20, P.W. 21, P.W. 24, P.W. 25, P.W. 26, P.W. 71 and P.W. 77 and we find that only some suggestions were given to these witnesses, but, no effective cross-examination was made to impeach their credibility regarding acceptance of their statement and to use the same in support of the conviction order.
80. From the status of the different witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, we find that they came from different walks of life ranging from dealer in illicit liquor, Government official, guard, police constable, businessman, housewife etc. and it is really difficult to accept that all these witnesses with the sole motive of betraying the appellants would depose in support of the prosecution case when they had no chance to know either the victim or the relatives of the victim or they had no enmity with any of the appellant. At the same time, it is significant to note that all the principal witnesses of the prosecution were examined within a shortest possible time and the charge sheet was also submitted almost within the statutory period and for this reason, there was little scope for manipulation of evidence.
81. Thus, having regard to the entire prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and with special emphasis on the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee, Gopal Sarkar and Ashok Rai @ Bhoda and also with special emphasis on the recovery of the gold chain and ring of Anurag from the godown of Dixit & Company at the instance of Ashok Rai & Bhoda, we are of the considered view that prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances from its oral and documentary evidence which taken as a whole unerringly established the guilt of each and every appellant of these appeals and, that apart, the confessional statement of Debasish Banerjee clearly disclosed that he hatched the conspiracy with Bijon Barua and after kidnapping Anurag and after taking him to the godown of Dixit & Company at Salkia, Howrah with the help of Ashok Rai, Gopal Sarkar and Pallab Mukherjee killed Anurag and disposed of his dead body by throwing the same in the river Ganges.
82. Thus, in view of our above discussion and in the light of evidence already discussed, we find no merit in any of these appeals and we dismiss both the appeals and we confirm the order of conviction and sentence of all the appellants as recorded by the learned Trial Judge.
83. Both Criminal Appeals Nos. 23 of 1992 and 35 of 1992 are accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Judge are hereby confirmed.
84. We find from record that only Bijan Barua is in detention and the other four appellants are on bail and we hereby cancel their bail bonds with immediate effect and direct them to surrender before the trial Court within 15 days from this order failing which the trial Court is directed to take immediate steps to arrest all these appellants and to send them to prison to suffer the sentence.
85. Send the record of the trial Court immediately along with the copy of this judgment and order.
86. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned advocates for the appellants on making proper application after complying with all legal formalities.
87. We direct office to send a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of Correctional Home where appellant Bijan Barua is detained for his information immediately.