Meghalaya High Court
Shri Suraj Gupta vs . State Of Meghalaya on 14 May, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MEG 52, (2019) 4 GAU LT 372
Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No.07
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.No.2/2015
with Crl.A.No.3/2018
Date of Order: 14.05.2019
Shri Suraj Gupta Vs. State of Meghalaya
Shri Ajay Das Vs. State of Meghalaya
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. SD Upadhaya, Adv
Mr. S Chakrawarty, Sr.Adv with
Ms. R Sumer, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A Kumar, Advocate General with
Mr. S Sen Gupta, Addl. PP
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes
Per Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, 'CJ'
1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment
dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Adhoc Judge, Fast Track Court, West
Garo Hills, Tura in terms whereof, three accused namely, Shri Suraj
Gupta, Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das have been convicted for
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302/364-A/201
and 120-B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC). The order
dated 10.12.2014 is also impugned in terms whereof, accused Shri
Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar have been sentenced to life
imprisonment both under Sections 302/364-A IPC also have been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years under Section
201 IPC whereas, accused Ajay Das has been sentenced to undergo 14
(fourteen) years rigorous imprisonment both under Sections 302 and
1
364-A IPC and also rigorous imprisonment of 7 (seven) years under
Section 201 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run currently.
Prosecution case:
2. Information about missing of 9 (nine) years old minor boy
Vaibhab Singh @Babu @Vishal, son of Baliram Singh of Fancy
Valley Tura resulted in registration of the case No.21/2006. On
completion of the investigation, three accused persons namely, Suraj
Gupta, Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das during investigation were
established to have committed the offences punishable under Sections
364/302/201/34 IPC. Charge sheet was presented. The charges against
the accused persons were framed for the commission of the said
offences. The trial ended in conviction vide judgment dated
24.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tura. All
the three accused were sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC.
Under Section 364-A IPC were sentenced to imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. Under Section 201 IPC, all the three
accused were awarded imprisonment for 6 (six) years. All the
sentences were directed to run currently. For confirmation of death
sentence, reference was made under Section 366 Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).
3. All the three accused aggrieved by the said judgment and
order, had filed three separate appeals before the High Court of
Gauhati,Shillong Bench, as it was then, registered as Crl. (Jail) Appeal
Nos.(SH) 8, 9 and 10 of 2007. All the three appeals were allowed vide
common judgment dated 24.05.2010.In para 26, it had been opined
that the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313
CrPC are bad, so conviction recorded and sentences awarded were set
aside and case was remitted back to the learned Trial Court with a
direction to put all the incriminating circumstances to the accused
persons in accordance with Section 313 CrPC. Then to ask the accused
2
whether they want to enter upon defence, then to provide them
appropriate opportunity to lead evidence in defence. Thereafter, parties
be heard. Since the conviction and sentence had been quashed,
reference made under Section 366 CrPC was answered in the negative.
However, it was made clear that no observation has been made on the
merits of the case.
4. Session trial is governed by Chapter XVIII of CrPC. In terms
of Section 232 CrPC after taking evidence of the prosecution,
examining the accused under Section 313 CrPC, on hearing the
prosecution and defence, if there is no evidence, acquittal has to be
recorded. Otherwise in terms of Section 233 CrPC, accused has to be
called upon to enter upon his defence and adduce any defence he may
have in support thereof.
5. It is quite relevant to mention that the earlier trial was found
to be bad from the stage of examination of the accused under Section
313 CrPC as a result whereof, conviction and sentence was set aside
so in effect, trial was and has been continued from the stage of
examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
6. Learned Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) examined
the accused Ajay Das @Kirtaniya under Section 313 CrPC on
23.08.2011 thereafter the case was transferred to Fast Track Court on
12.04.2013. Learned Trial Court (Fast Track Court) examined accused
Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar under Section 313 CrPC on 24.05.2013.
Accused were given an opportunity to produce defence witnesses. On
24.05.2013, counsel for the accused Suraj Gupta filed an application
under Section 315 (1)(a) CrPC so was examined as a witness DW1.
Accused Ajay Das also appeared himself as a witness and was
examined as DW2 whereas accused Sobraj Sonar also appeared
himself as a witness so was examined as DW3.
7. All the three accused did not produce any other witnesses in
support of their defence, however, counsel for Suraj Gupta (accused)
3
had prayed for recall of one witness PW20 Dr. Marwin R. Sangma on
the ground that he was not properly cross-examined during trial before
Additional Sessions Judge same was allowed. PW20 was further
cross-examined by counsel for the accused Suraj Gupta.
8. On hearing both the parties, all the three accused stand
convicted vide judgment impugned dated 28.11.2014 and sentenced
vide order dated 10.12.2014 as made mention of in para-1 of this
judgment. Two accused Suraj Gupta and Ajay Das have filed these
two instant appeals whereas another is dead.
Background:
9. In the evening of 28.05.2006 at around 8:45 PM, Officer-in- Charge Tura PS received a verbal information about missing of a 9 (nine) years old minor boy namely, Vaibhab @Babu @ Vishal resident of Fancy Valley within Tura town, West Garo Hills. On inquiry of the police, it surfaced that in the evening of 28.05.2006, victim boy went to the house of his neighbour accused Suraj Gupta and was playing with him till 7:00 PM, thereafter, accused Suraj Gupta left for Guwahati, missing boy came out from the house of accused Suraj Gupta then was missing, later on, he was alleged to have been kidnapped by some unknown culprit(s) who demanded a ransom of Rs.50 lakhs. A team of police officer in the course of inquiry, on suspicion picked up Shri Diplu Mondal who on interrogation disclosed that he was told by Suraj Gupta (accused) that they i.e. Suraj Gupta, Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das (accused) kidnapped one minor boy. He (Diplu Mondal) has also provided telephone number of his roommate Shri Santu Roy at Guwahati. Suraj Gupta (accused) was also staying with them and Santu Roy was also contacted. Ajay Das (accused) was arrested from Tura, who on interrogation confessed that he along with Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar had kidnapped the boy and murdered him before reaching Chinabat. After packing the dead body in a gunny bag was thrown into a nearby deep gorge.
4Ajay Das (accused) drove the vehicle Tata Indica, used for kidnapping, bearing No.ML-08-A-3039 belonged to Shri Pradeep Roy of Hawakhana. The statement of Ajay Das (accused) was taken in presence of two independent witnesses. Thereafter, Sobraj Sonar (accused) was arrested at Rongram from the ongoing night super bus from Guwahati on being identified by accused Ajay Das. Sobraj Sonar (accused) was also interrogated whose confession statement was taken in presence of two independent witnesses he agreed to lead the police for recovery of dead body.
10. On 02.06.2006, the dead body was recovered nearby Chinabat on being led by the accused persons. The dead body was found inside the gunny bag and one chappal belonging to the victim was also found in the gunny bag and the dead body was identified by the victim‟s father and other witnesses, inquest report was prepared. The dead body was brought to Tura hospital for postmortem. The vehicle which was used for commission of the crime was seized. Suraj Gupta (accused) was apprehended by police at Nongpoh, Ri Bhoi district and handed over to the Investigating Officer. His confessional statement was recorded by the Magistrate.
11. Ajay Das (accused) during interrogation confessed that he had taken out the gold ornaments (finger ring) and one gold chain with locket from the dead body which was sold to a gold refinery shop at Laktokia at Pan Bazar, Guwahati. Then he led the police for recovery of gold ornaments which were melted by the jeweler same was seized.
12. On conclusion of the investigation, accused were found to have committed the aforesaid offences. Charges for the commission of the said offences have been framed to which accused pleaded not guilty as such, claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case had produced as many as 24 witnesses out of 30 listed witnesses.
13. After remand by the High Court of Guwahati, Shillong Bench, the accused were examined a fresh in terms of Section 313 5 CrPC. All incriminating circumstances were put to them. To the 13 incriminating circumstances, accused Suraj Gupta did not tender any explanation except in response to each circumstance has answered as under: -
"I have nothing to say."
14. 14 incriminating circumstances were put to the accused Sobraj Sonar. To all the circumstances answers by him suggests that he has denied the complicity in the crime and claimed to be innocent.
15. It shall be necessary to precisely notice the material depositions of the prosecution witnesses and also the depositions of DWs.
Prosecution witnesses:
PW1 Shri Promod Tiwari has stated that on 06.06.2006 he and one Bibas Das went to Tura PS just to see the accused persons. Investigating Officer called them inside the police station as he was to record statement of accused Ajay Das. Ajay Das revealed before the police that he along with Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar kidnapped the boy from the house of Suraj Gupta where the victim boy was playing with Suraj Gupta and his brother. Ajay Das (Accused) also stated before the police that he (accused) kidnapped the victim boy for ransom. After kidnapping the boy they (accused) took the victim boy in Indica car No.ML-08-A-3039, filled diesel from Suresh Das Petrol Pump while reaching near Tura Christian Hospital victim boy started vomiting, Sobraj took care of the boy and they proceeded towards Williamnagar. Before reaching Chinabat, they parked the vehicle near the road side. Sobraj strangulated the boy to death by pressing the throat of the victim by his hand. After killing the boy, Ajay Das (accused) removed the gold chain and finger ring from the victim boy and packed the dead body into a gunny bag and threw it in a deep gorge thereafter, they (accused) left for Guwahati. On reaching Guwahati they contacted their friend Diphlu Mondal and told him that 6 they have brought one patient for medical treatment sought his help for selling the gold ornament. Diphlu Mondal helped them in selling the gold ornament at Guwahati Laltokia, Pan Bazar for Rs.6000/- out of which Rs.4000/- was given to Ajay Das (accused) as the fare of vehicle. Ajay Das (accused) also stated that he can show the jewelry shop where they (accused) sold the gold ornament. Accused Ajay Das led them to the place where-from the dead body was recovered. He (witness) further stated that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate in Deputy Commissioner‟s court. Ext.1 is the statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.1(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross examination, he has stated that he went to the police station just to visit and to see the accused persons present in the dock at the police station. He (witness) did not see the recovery of dead body from the place of occurrence. In his presence Ajay Das‟s (accused) statement was recorded by the police. He (witness) did not notice torturing of Ajay Das by the police. Ajay Das was not scared by the police.
PW2 Bibas Ch. Das has stated that on 28.05.2006 he received information at about 8:15 PM while he was going back home from Bazar that Vaibhab Singh was missing. He (witness) rushed to the house of the victim and found a gathering then he and other neighbours went in searchof the boy but the victim was not found, he informed Tura PS about the missing boy over phone. The father of the victim in connection with business at that time was in Guwahati. He (witness) along with the other neighbours went to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) because the victim boy was frequently visiting the house of Suraj Gupta being friendly with the younger brother of Suraj Gupta but mother of Suraj Gupta replied that the victim boy had already left. He (witness) further stated that Suraj Gupta used to take drug they suspected him (accused) might have taken the victim boy around Tura Bazar. The mother of Suraj Gupta told them that her son 7 (Suraj Gupta) left for Guwahati after the victim boy left their house. On 29.05.2006, victim family received a phone call from Guwahati which was picked by the elder sister of the victim boy demand for Rs.20 lakhs was made. Next day, Ajay Das (accused) was arrested thereafter it was learnt that the victim boy was already killed by the kidnapper. Ajay Das (accused) used to drive private vehicle. Accused Ajay Das drove the vehicle ML-08-A-3039 Tata Indica private car which was used for kidnapping the victim boy. He (witness) came to know that in the said vehicle Ajay Das along with Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar took the boy towards Guwahati. The vehicle was seized along with all the documents. Ext.2 is the seizure list of Indica car and other documents and Ext.2(1) bears his (witness) signature.
On 06.06.2006, he (witness) was called by the Officer-in- Charge of Tura PS wherein in his presence accused Ajay Das stated that he along with Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar kidnapped Vaibhab Singh (victim boy) and took him in the Tata Indica car towards Guwahati. From Asangeng, they (accused) diverted towards Williamnagar and then on reaching Chinabat they stopped the car as the boy was semi conscious they took out the finger ring and gold chain from the victim boy then Suraj asked Sobraj to press the neck and throat of the victim boy, Ajay Das (accused) held the legs of the boy and Sobraj killed him. After killing the boy, they (accused) packed the dead body in the gunny bag and threw it into a deep gorge, then they went to Guwahati and contacted one of their friend for help to dispose of gold ornament for Rs.6000/-. The accused persons conveyed to their friend that their sick grandmother was brought for treatment. It was also stated by Ajay Das (accused) that he received Rs.4000/- as vehicle hiring charge but next day itself he came back to Tura and got arrested by the police. The statement of Ajay Das (accused) recorded by Investigating Officer at Tura PS is at Ext.3, same was recorded in his (witness) presence and in presence of 8 Promod Tiwari and Ext.3(1) bears his (witness) signature. His (witness) statement was recorded by the Magistrate at Tura. Ext.4 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.4(1) bears his (witness) signature. Sobraj Sonar was arrested from Rongram and Suraj Gupta was arrested from Guwahati. The dead body was recovered from Chinabat on being led by Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar. The two accused (Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar) used to take drug and disrupt the locality and Ajay Das also used to drink. In the cross examination has stated that the victim‟s sister informed him that the accused has demanded Rs.20 lakhs for ransom. He (witness) was present when telephone call was made by the accused persons.
PW3 Ashok Pandey has stated that the victim boy was kidnapped on 29.05.2006 and family member received phone call from Guwahati with a demand of Rs.50 lakhs. On 02.06.2006, he (witness) visited Tura police station where he was informed by the Officer-in-Charge Tura police station that the kidnapped boy has been murdered. Accused Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das were apprehended by the police, Ajay Das (accused) was a taxi driver. The accused persons were interrogated in his (witness) presence and in presence of Nemson Marak. They (accused) confessed before the police that they had kidnapped the boy and took him into Tata Indica ML-05-A-3039 towards Williamnagar road. After reaching Chinabat they (accused) stopped the car, Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar (accused) killed the boy inside the car by strangulation then packed the body in the gunny bag and threw the body into deep gorge. The accused persons said that they will show the police where the dead boy was thrown. The accused persons were taken to the place of occurrence, he (witness) and one Nemson Marak also accompanied them. On reaching to the place of recovery with the help of some local labourers, dead body was retrievedwhich was highly decomposed and smelling. The chappal of the victim was also recovered same was seized. Seizure list of gunny 9 bag with dead body (Ext.5) and Ext.5(1) is his (witness) signature. Ext.1 is the gunny bag seized by the police from the spot and materials Ext.2 is the pair of chappal of the victim seized from the spot. Ext.6 is the statement of Ajay Das (accused) recorded by the police. Ext.6(1) is his (witness) signature. Ext.7 is the statement of Sobraj Sonar (accused) and Ext.7(1) which bears his signature as witness.
On 22.06.2006, he (witness) was in Guwahati and Investigating Officer informed him through his mobile to meet near Paltan Bazar police station to be a witness to seizure of hotel register, payment date etc. of Jain Hotel at Paltan Bazar where these accused persons stayed after killing and throwing the dead body of the boy. One hotel register record book from page No.1 to 100, one advance money receipt book, one Xerox copy of page No.55 of hotel visitor record book and one attested Xerox copy of advance money receipt were seized. Ext.8 is the seizure list prepared by the police and Ext.8(1) is his (witness) signature. Thereafter, they went to Christian Basti at Ganeshguri, Guwahati to the PCO from where the accused persons had contacted the victim‟s family for ransom. The police seized the Xerox copy of PCO register wherein every record of call is maintained. Ext.9 is the seizure list and Ext.9(1) is his (witness) signature. He (witness) further stated that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate at Tura court which was read over to him. Ext.10 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.10(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination of the counsel for the accused persons, he (witness) has stated that he was informed that Balram Singh received a phone call asking for Rs.50 lakhs. On 02.06.2006 when they (witnesses) visited Tura police station, two accused persons namely, Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar were arrested and confessed in their presence. He (witness) accompanied the police to the place of occurrence at Chinabat and saw the dead body in a gunny bag. The 10 accused confessed in their presence that they are ready to lead for recovery of dead body. They (accused) also stated that they have taken out the gold chain from the dead body and sold it to one jeweler in Guwahati.
PW4 Baliram Singh (father of the victim) has stated that on 28.05.2006 he was in Guwahati for business purposes. On 29.05.2006 he left for Guwahati and reached Tura in the evening where he found that people had gathered, on enquiry he came to know that his son was kidnapped. On 30.05.2006 morning, mother of the accused Suraj Gupta came to his house and informed that after one hour he will receive a phone call which he received at 11:30 AM, caller demanded Rs.50 lakhs for release of his son and caller spoke in Garo language.
At about 4:00 PM he received another call, he was unable to pay a huge amount. Then on 30.05.2006 at about 8:00 PM again he received a phone call from the father of Suraj Gupta (accused) who informed him to visit his shop as some people will come and collect the money from him (witness) then boy will be released. Again on 02.06.2006, father of Suraj Gupta (accused) contacted him over phone and instructed him that demand note will be served to him (witness). When he received phone call from the father of Suraj Gupta (accused), he suspected that Suraj Gupta and his family are behind the kidnapping of his son. Mother of Suraj Gupta (accused) asked him (witness) to make the payment to Suraj Guptahis son will be released which he agreed to. He (witness) informed that Suraj Gupta (accused) will be coming by night super bus in the same night. On 01.06.2006 at about 12 noon, one Diplu Mondal and his mother came to his (witness) house and informed him that his son has been kidnapped by Suraj Guata and Ajay Das @Kritamneah and his son has been kept in Williamnagar. He (witness) agreed to pay on condition of his son being released and also promised Diplu Mondal that he (witness) will bear all his 11 educational expenses for two years provide Diplu Mondal helps him to get his son back. Diplu Mondal is a friend of Suraj Gupta (accused).
He (witness) informed Tura police station about Diplu Mondal. Diplu Mondal was interrogated by the police. He (witness) further stated that his son used to frequently visit the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) as he was close to them. On 02.06.2006, he learnt that his son has been killed by the kidnappers. On 03.02.2006, he accompanied the Investigating Officer for recovery of dead body along with accused Suraj Gupta, Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar. Ashok Pandey and Nemson Marak also accompanied him. The dead body was recovered from the spot at Chinabat which was decomposed, inquest was held. Ext.11 is the inquest report and Ext.11(1) is his (witness) signature. The dead body was packed in a gunny bag and chappal of his son was also inside the gunny bag same was seized. Police also took photograph of the dead body. Chain gold and one gold finger ring which his son used to wear were also missing from the dead body. Accused Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das led to the recovery of dead body they (accused) confessed that they had taken out the gold necklace and the ring and sold the same in Guwahati. His (witness) son was nine years old at the time of kidnapping.
In the cross-examination of the defence he has stated that he did not see kidnapping and killing of his child. Kum Devi mother of the accused Suraj Gupta and Diplu Mondal were not implicated as accused in the case.
PW5 Diplu Mondal has stated that he was pursuing study at Guwahati. Accused Suraj Gupta was his roommate who was doing computer course he used to take drug occasionally. On 14.02.2006, he came back to Tura but did not go back to Guwahati for about five months Sobraj Sonar was also his friend. On 09.05.2006, he met Ajay Das for the first time with Sobraj Sonar. On that day, they (accused) asked him to be in the plan of kidnapping of one boy which he refused 12 and advised them not to get involved in criminal activities they promised that they will not do illegal. Sobraj Sonar used to frequently see films and always used to joke/talk about murder and kidnapping. On 14.05.2006 he (witness) went to Guwahati for studies, Sobraj Sonar (accused) was also supposed to go with him two tickets were booked for Guwahati but in the nick of time, Sobraj Sonar cancelled the ticket and told that he will come to Guwahati on 28th or 29th May 2006. On 29.06.2006 at about 8:30 AM, Suraj Gupta‟s brother rang up his next roommate and inquired about Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar as to whether they have reached Guwahati or not. On the same date, Suraj Gupta rang him (witness) through Santu Roy (roommate) mobile set that they were staying at Suraj Gupta cousin‟s house. He (witness) and Santu Roy went to meet them at Digilipukhri near Hindique College. The three accused persons went to Paltan Bazar for lunch. After lunch, Ajay Das (accused) showed him (witness) one gold chain and one finger ring and sought help to dispose of the same by stating that they had brought one patient at GNRC, Guwahati they are short of money. In search of gold jewellery reached Laktokia Bazar where the said gold ornaments were sold at Rs.6000/-. Then, they (accused) again came back and sat in one room in a hotel booked by them. He (witness) also saw one Indica car bearing Tura‟s number plate, therefore, he believed that the accused might have brought one patient. Inside the room they (accused) started drinking and gossiping Ajay Das (accused) narrated that they have kidnapped one child which they have kept in East Garo Hills he took it as a joke. He wanted Rs.100/- but Suraj Gupta gave him Rs.500/-.
On 30.05.2006 morning, Suraj Gupta brother contacted him that one child is missing from the locality of Fancy Valley, however, Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar (accused) advised him (witness) to be careful police may come for investigation. On the same date police enquired about Suraj Gupta and took one photo album belonging to 13 Suraj Gupta (accused). Next date he (witness) reached Tura, police came and enquired about Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar. Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to contact his roommate Santu Roy on his mobile which he did and informed that Ajay Das had contacted Santu Roy on 01.06.2006 and gave his phone number from which Ajay Das (accused) contacted him (witness). Deputy Superintendent of Police confirmed that Ajay Das (accused) had called from Tura PCO, Subhir Bhawan. Then, they asked them to identify Ajay Das (accused) and police arrested Ajay Das near Gouriamath Nakham Bazar, Tura.
He (witness) further stated that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate at Tura. Ext.12 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.12(1) bears his (witness) signature. The statement is same as is read over to him. The gold which they (accused) have sold was recovered by the police. Later on, he (witness) came to know that the boy who has been kidnapped was the son of Suraj‟s uncle Baliram Singh and came to know that Sobraj Sonar (accused) had killed the child. TIP was also conducted in the jail premises and he (witness) identified all the three accused.
In the cross-examination of the defence he has stated that he has not participated in kidnapping, murder and also disposing of the gold chain. It is a fact that Suraj Gupta (accused) used to take drug and it is also a fact that accused Suraj Gupta would commit such a serious crime. Since he knew all the three accused, therefore identified them. It is also a fact that his (witness) friend circle knew Sobraj Sonar used to talk about kidnapping and killing somebody but they did not take it seriously.
PW6 Chondon Bose has stated that on 02.06.2006, Investigating Officer called him to go to Guwahati was accompanied by Baliram Singh (father of the victim). On reaching Guwahati went to Paltan Bazar police station and proceeded to Jain hotel at Paltan Bazar.
14On enquiry at Jain hotel, the manager of Jain hotel produced the hotel visitor report register and advance money receipt of Rs.300/- which was paid by the accused Suraj Gupta on their stay at Guwahati after kidnapping and murdering the boy. Police seized Xerox copy of the hotel visitor report of advance money and other documents from the manager of the hotel. Ext.8 is the seizure list and Ext.8(1) bears his (witness) signature. Ashok Pandey was also present at the time of enquiry at the hotel and seizure of documents. Thereafter, proceeded to a PCO at Ganeshguri M.M. PCO (Tele service) their also Investigating Officer enquired about the call register and seized the telephone set, 1 (one) PCO billing machine and 1 (one) page of the register. Ext.9 is the seizure list and Ext.9(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination of the counsel for defence has stated that he (witness) did not see kidnapping and killing the boy. Those seized articles as stated by him (witness) are not produced before the court nor articles seized from the PCO are shown to him in the court.
PW7 Nemson Marak has stated that confessional statement of Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das (accused)were recorded by the police in his presence. These two accused persons stated before the police that they (accused) have kidnapped the minor boy from Tura and took him in a Tata Indica car towards Chinabat and on reaching Chinabat killed the boy and threw the dead body into a deep gorge. Three accused persons namely, Suraj Gupta, Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das are involved in the case they (accused) have also stated that they can lead the police for recovery of dead body. On 02.06.2006 on being led by Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar (accused) proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the police and two other witnesses namely, Ashok Pandey and Baliram Singh (father of the victim). Ext.6 is the statement of Ajay Das (accused) recorded by the Investigating Officer in their presence and Ext.6(2) is his (witness) signature. Ext.7 is the statement of Sobraj Sonar (accused) recorded by the police and Ext.7(2) is his (witness) 15 signature. On reaching the spot, these two accused persons identified the place wherefrom they had thrown the dead body and the dead body was recovered from the deep gorge and brought to the road side. Father of the deceased identified the dead body. The dead body was packed in a gunny bag and one pair of chappal of the deceased boy was recovered. Mat.Ext.1 is the gunny bag in which the dead body was packed and Mat.Ext.2 is a pair of chappal of the dead body. Ext.5 is the seizure list of gunny bag and a pair of chappal and Ext.5(2) is his (witness) signature. Police held inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report vide Ext.11 and Ext.11(3) is his signature as witness. Police also prepared a rough sketch map of the place of occurrence vide Ext.13 and Ext.13(2) is his signature as witness. He (witness) further stated that his statement has been recorded by the Magistrate (Ext.14) and Ext.14(1) is his signature as witness.
In the cross-examination he has stated that he does know whether the accused persons had kidnapped or not but he (witness) heard that they (accused) had kidnapped the boy. In the police station, in his presence police politely asked the accused persons, the questions which they replied. He (witness) accompanied police to the place of occurrence and also gave his statement before the Magistrate. He did not see kidnapping or murdering of the boy with his own eye.
PW8 Santu Roy has stated that on 29.05.2006, he was studying at Guwahati pursuing studies. Diplu Mondal was his roommate and Suraj Gupta was also staying with them at Guwahati doing some computer course. On 29.05.2006, Suraj Gupta (accused) rang him at about 11:30 AM wanted to talk with Diplu Mondal he handed over his mobile handset to Diplu Mondal. Diplu Mondal informed him that Suraj Gupta had come with some of his friends wanted to meet them at Diglipuhri. He (witness) and Diplu Mondal went to meet him (accused) and also met two other accused persons. After sometime, he (witness) left and came back to his room whereas 16 Dupli Mondal stayed back with them. Diplu Mondal came back to the room at around 9:00 PM and informed that one boy from Tura was missing Suraj Gupta and his two friends are suspected. Before that in the evening time Diplu Mondal rang him (witness) and enquired about one jewellery shop. On the next day i.e. 30.05.2006 Meghalaya police raided their room in search of Suraj Gupta (accused), Diplu Mondal was also in the room. He (witness) received one call from Sobraj Sonar asking about Diplu Mondal, he informed Sobraj Sonar that police raided and advised him to go back to Tura and surrender before the police, if they have committed any crime. In response he said he has not committed any crime and switched off the phone. Again after sometime, he (witness) received a phone call from Ajay Das (accused) asking about Suraj Gupta (accused) then disconnected.
On 31.05.2006 he (witness) was called by the Meghalaya police to identify the accused persons took him to Khanapara police station. On 02.06.2006 in the evening time, he was taken to Nongpoh to help the police in identifying the accused persons who are involved in kidnapping and murder at Tura. While police searching night super bus at Nongpoh on 02.06.2006, he (witness) found Suraj Gupta (accused) in the bus identified him (accused) to the police and police arrested him.
In the cross-examination of defence he has stated that he does not know that the accused persons had kidnapped the boy only heard it from the police.
PW9 Sandford Marak has stated that he accompanied the police to the place of occurrence for searching the dead body which was recovered but was quite decomposed. The dead body was in a gunny bag. Police held inquest over the dead body and seizure memo was prepared which he has (witness) signed. He (witness) did not know whether the accused persons were present at the time of recovery of the dead body.
17In the cross-examination of defence he has stated that the police informed him that they had already recovered the dead body and went to Chinabat to buy gunny bag. He (witness) did not see police searching the dead body witnessed only that the dead body was kept on the road side. To his knowledge, accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence. Police asked him to sign the papers which were already written but he does not know what was written in the paper.
PW10 Sapinat Sangma has stated that the police came to Chinabat and told that there is a dead body thrown into a deep gorge, he also accompanied. Police held inquest over the dead body and prepared an inquest report vide Ext.11 and Ext.11(4) bears his signature as witness. Ext.13 is the recovery memo and Ext.13(3) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination has stated that he was staying at Chinabat bazar police came to purchase a gunny bag to carry the dead body which was already recovered. He (witness) did not see the accused persons at the place of occurrence when the dead body was recovered by the police.
PW11 Simpee Singh (sister of the victim) stated that Suraj Gupta (accused) and two other accused are friends of Suraj Gupta whom she did not know personally. Bhaivab Singh (victim boy) was his younger brother who frequently used to visit the house of accused Suraj Gupta for playing, was very close and friendly to accused Suraj Gupta. On 28.05.2006 Bhaivab Singh (victim boy) went to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) at about 4:00 PM and at 5:30 PM, her mother asked her to bring her brother home. She (witness) went to their compound found her brother was playing with accused Suraj Gupta and his younger brother. She was just down near the house of accused Suraj Gupta and two of his friends who are present on the dock were standing on the road side near the shop. Suraj Gupta (accused) caught 18 my brother‟s hand and requested her (witness) to leave as they are going to purchase uncle chips. After purchasing uncle chips while coming back, accused Suraj Gupta caught my brother‟s hand and told him to leave as he was to be given milk, she brought her brother to her house. On reaching home, her brother requested her to prepare suji for him and again wanted to go to Suraj Gupta (accused) house. After ten to fifteen minutes when suji was ready, she (witness) requested her mother to call Bhaivab Singh (victim) she went to bring him back from the house of accused Suraj Gupta. While taking suji, Suraj Gupta‟s brother Deepak came and called Bhaivab Singh for playing and Bhaivab Singh went with Deepak. Suraj Gupta‟s (accused) house is very close to her house. She called her brother from the gate of the house asked Suraj Gupta mother why her brother was calling mummy to which she replied that they were watching wrestling in TV and he simply called so she came back. Then after 10 to 15 minutes as it was becoming dark her mother asked her to bring Bhaivab Singh (victim boy) home. She went to the compound of Suraj Gupta but gate was locked so she called her brother from the gate instead Suraj Gupta‟s mother came out and told her that her brother had already left. She came back informed her mother that Bhaivab Singh is not there, then, her mother went near the house of Suraj Gupta and called for Bhaivab Singh and same reply was given to her by Suraj Gupta‟s mother. Further, she was informed by the mother of Suraj Gupta that Suraj Gupta had gone to Guwahati at about 7:30 PM while her brother left the house of Suraj Gupta at about 7:45 PM. They started searching but was not found. They were panicked and worried for the whole night as her brother did not come back. Her father was not there. Some neighbours informed the police and police came to their house at 10:30 PM. On 29.05.2006 at around 8:30 to 9:00 AM, received a phone call asking her father to speak. Again after 4:30 PM on the same day another phone call was received asking for her father, call was in 19 Garo language. Then on 30.05.2006 her father came from Guwahati again there was a phone call. She learnt later on that Suraj Gupta and his friend had kidnapped her brother and killed. On 03.06.2006 dead body was recovered. Further stated that when she went with Bhaivab Singh to buy uncle chips, she found three cars parked on the road side down to her house. Later on did not see any vehicle. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate at Tura. Ext.15 is her statement which she had given before the Magistrate. Her brother was wearing half- pant, white T.Shirt, slippers, one gold necklace and one gold finger ring.
In the cross-examination whatever she knew about the case has stated before the Court. She knew Suraj Gupta but did not know the other accused by name. She did not know who kidnapped and killed her brother. She simply suspects that the accused persons had kidnapped and murdered her brother.
PW12 Bipul Das stated that on 28.05.2006 accused Ajay Das took the vehicle ML-08-A-3039 to Guwahati with the permission of the owner (Pradeep Roy) for carrying Sobraj Sonar‟s grandmother for treatment. Ajay Das was allowed to drive the vehicle key was handed over to him (accused). Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar requested the vehicle owner to allow them to take the vehicle to Guwahati which was allowed. On 31.06.2006, the vehicle owner instructed him (witness) to take the vehicle and key from Ajay Das (accused) on 02.02.2006. He (witness) heard that the same vehicle was taken by Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar and used it for kidnapping and murdering of one boy. His (witness) statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Ext.17 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.17(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination has stated that he did not know about kidnapping and murdering of the boy by the accused persons.
20PW13 Pradeep Kumar Roy (owner of the vehicle ML-08- A-3039 Tata Indica) has stated that Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar (accused) are known to him. The said vehicle was hired by Sobraj Sonar to take one patient to Guwahati. He knew Ajay Das from very well as he used to drive his vehicle in absence of his permanent driver. On 28.05.2006 Ajay Das came and requested him for his vehicle to take one patient for treatment. He (witness) trusted Ajay Das and handed over the key with the instruction to take proper care of the vehicle but up to 5:30 PM the vehicle was still found at Fancy Valley therefore, he asked his regular driver to bring back the vehicle. Ajay Das along with accused Sobraj Sonar came and requested him to allow them to take the vehicle and then he allowed them to take the vehicle. On 29.05.2006, Ajay Das rang him that they have reached Guwahati. On 30.05.2006 Ajay Das rang me that he shall be reaching Tura by evening. On 31.05.2006 his regular driver brought the vehicle from Ajay Das at about 9:30 AM. Ajay Das came and handed over Rs.4000/- as hiring charge. On 02.02.2006 one police officer Sankar Mahanta rang him and enquired about my vehicle to which he replied that the car is parked at Super Market and he was asked to produce the vehicle at Tura police station. Police informed him that the vehicle was used for kidnapping and murdering of one boy of Fancy Valley. Vehicle was seized along with the documents but later on police hand over the vehicle along with the documents. His (witness) statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Ext.16 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.16(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination for defence has stated that the vehicle ML-08-A-3039 is a private vehicle. Ajay Das (accused) has informed that he had received Rs.4000/- as hiring charge. He (witness) does not know whether the present accused have kidnapped and murdered the boy.
21PW14 Jitendra Prasad Barman has stated that Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar are known to him and Ajay Das is not known to him. On 28.05.2006 at about 7:30 PM, mother of Bhaivab Singh (victim) called his daughter and asked whether Bhaivab Singh was at their house. Mother of Bhaivab Singh got panicked and when he enquired she told him that her son had gone to Suraj Gupta house and has been missing. He and mother of Bhaivab Singh along with his wife searching from neighbouring house but could not find him. Bhaivab‟s father was not in the house at that time they decided to inform the police on the next day. On 29.05.2006 there was one phone call on landline of Baliram Singh which was received by his daughter Simpee. The caller was speaking in Garo language was handed over to him, caller asked about Baliram Singh and on getting reply that he is not at home, phone was disconnected.On the same date in the evening time also there was another phone call by the same caller asking for Baliram Singh again it was replied that he was not at home. Later on, he (witness) came to know that Bhaivab Singh was actually kidnapped and killed. Mother of Bhaivab Singh told him that Bhaivab Singh was playing in the house of Suraj Gupta and from there he had not come back.
In the cross-examination he has stated that Suraj Gupta is known to him very well. The other accused Sobraj Sonar is known to him by name and the other accused he did not know. Further, phone caller did not inform about kidnapping and murder.
PW15 Ranjit Dutta has stated that Ajay Das is known to him. Ajay Das came to his jewellery shop sold one chain with locket and one gold finger ring of minor child on 29.05.2006. Accused Ajay Das was accompanied by another person. He enquired about the jewellery as to whether it was stolen or not then another person replied that Ajay Das‟s mother was sick and under treatment that is why they are selling the gold chain and finger ring. The gold items were about 22 10 grams and he paid Rs.6000/- to Ajay Das. A written declaration from Ajay Das was obtained before money was paid. Then, he gave the gold ornaments to Biswajit Bosah for melting and refining. Suddenly on 07.06.2006 police from Tura on being led by the accused Ajay Das came to his jewellery shop and enquired as reported by Biswajit Bosah as he (witness) was not present at that time when police came. His employee Biswajit Bosah handed over the melted gold and also the written document for sale of gold to the police. Police seized the melted gold and one exercise hardbound binding book in which he used to maintain record of selling and preparing of gold ornaments. Mat.Ext.4 is the melted gold sold by Ajay Das (accused) and Mat.Ext.5 is the hardbound exercise record book wherein at page 59, written declaration of Ajay Das is recorded with his (witness) signature. He (witness) later on came to know that the gold ornaments as were sold to him related to kidnapping and murder of a minor boy. Ext.19 is his statement recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.19(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination of the counsel for defence stated that he had received10 grams of gold seller wanted Rs.8000/- but after bargaining he paid only Rs.6000/-.
PW16 Smti. Indu Devi Singh (mother of the victim) has stated that accused Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar are known to her. On 28.05.2006 her son had gone to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) to play with him and his younger brother Deepak. At around 4:00 PM Suraj Gupta came and took her child to his room and when her child went there he asked her to prepare suji. Around 5:30 PM when suji was prepared by her daughter (Simpee) she (witness) went to bring her child from Suraj Gupta‟s house and brought him. While she was feeding her child, Suraj Gupta‟s younger brother Deepak called him again for playing and her son went along with him to his house. After sometime, she heard her son calling mummy so she sent her daughter 23 to see as to why he is calling her she went and came back reported to her that Suraj Gupta‟s mother told her that they are watching wrestling movie and he just shouted. Her daughter did not enter the house of Suraj Gupta because compound gate was locked. Again she sent her daughter to bring him back because it was getting dark, she again went but the compound gate was still locked she called the mother of Suraj from the gate, Suraj‟s mother came out and informed her that Bhaivab Singh has already left for his house. She along with her daughter again went to the gate of Suraj‟s house and called Suraj‟s mother and asked where is her son she replied her that her son Suraj had left for Guwahati at about 7/7:30 PM. Her son frequently used to visit Suraj Gupta‟s house for playing. When she asked Suraj‟s mother why her child was allowed to come all alone she did not say anything. Her husband was also not at home on that day.
In view of missing of her son neighbours started coming to her house to console her that Bhaivab Singh will return home safely. Her son was wearing half pant, white T. shirt, one gold chain with locket and one finger ring. Her son was studying in Class-V healthy, energetic and intelligent boy. She did not inform the police she did not remember whether there was any call for ransom as she was all the times crying. She strongly suspects that Suraj Gupta‟s mother and brother are involved in the crime. Only after few days she got the news that her child was killed by the kidnappers. She could hardly see the dead body of her child as she felt unconscious. Her statement Ext.18 recorded by the Magistrate and Ext.18(1)(2) are her (witness) signatures.
In the cross-examination has stated that Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar are known to her. Mother of Suraj Gupta and his brother are not implicated and not produced before the court. She had a good relation with the mother of Suraj Gupta. She did not know that Suraj 24 Gupta kidnapped her son but later on she came to know that they had kidnapped and murdered her son.
PW17 Hanuman Sharma stated that on 28.05.2006 his duty was at Meghalaya Auto Agency at Tura, Hawakhana. At around 8:00 PM, one Tata Indica vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039 came to their auto agency for purchasing 33.2 liters of diesel. Driver of the vehicle paid the money and left. On 26.06.2006, police from Tura police station came and seized Xerox copy of cash memo book from the manager of Meghalaya Auto Agency Sukhmal Sagoni in his presence. Ext.20 is the seizure list and Ext.20(2) is his (witness) signature.
PW18 Sukhmal Sogani has stated that on 26.06.2006 police from Tura police station came to Meghalaya Auto Agency and asked him to produce cash memo book as relating to sale of diesel from 27 th to 30th May 2006, same on production was seized. Ext.20 is the seizure list and Ext20(1) is his (witness) signature. Xerox copy of cash memo relating to sale of diesel on 28.05.2006 to one vehicle No.ML-08-A- 3039 was seized vide Ext.20.
PW19 Atindra Das has stated that on 26.06.2006 he was present at Meghalaya Auto Agency just for chitchat. Police from Tura police station came to Meghalaya Auto Agency asked the manager Sukhmal Sogani to produce and furnish the cash memo book of the agency relating to sale of diesel from 27th to 30th May 2006 same were produced. Xerox copies of cash memo book vide Ext.20 were seized in his presence and Ext.20(3) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross examination has stated that he was just loitering at the auto agency, police came seized the documents and asked him to be a witness. He did not know to which vehicle cash memo belong to.
PW20 Dr. Marwin R. Sangma on 27.02.2007 has stated that since last four years he was posted at Tura District Health and Medical Office, Tura. His duty is to conduct postmortem in the absence of SDHMO. He (witness) conducted the postmortem examination of one 25 dead body of Bhaivab Singh on 03.06.2006. The dead body was of a minor boy of nine years. The dead body was wearing a grey colour T. Shirt and a deep blue cotton shirt pants. The dead body was highly decomposed and plenty of maggots all over the body and facial bones were already visible. External injuries cannot be detected due to highly decomposition of the body. Scalp was decomposed and skull was intact, brain matter decomposed, neck portion also decomposed, chest portion also decomposed and abdominal portion also decomposed with full of maggots. Part of large intestine protruded through the burst open of the left side of the abdomen splren, pancreas kidney, bladder and urea trunk were decomposed. Pelvic bones intact probable time since death is 5 to 7 days. Immediate cause of death is Asphyxia due to manual strangulation of neck manner of causation of injury is homicide. In his opinion the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to manual strangulation of neck as per his post mortem examination. Accordingly, he has submitted his postmortem report. Ext.21 is the post mortem report submitted by him and Ext.21(1) is his (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination has stated that he has already stated before the court that the dead body of the victim boy was highly decomposed. The skull bones had shrunk and other part of the body including neck was highly decomposed. He submitted his postmortem report that the deceased boy was strangulated by the neck is based on the inquest report.
Vide Trial Court‟s order dated 20.05.2014, on further cross- examination by counsel for the accused stated that it is a fact that when death occurs due to asphyxia, generally eyes remain open and eye balls as prominent and lips are also become lived and sometimes tongue protruded. He did not notice in his report all these symptoms as body was highly decomposed. It is also a fact that in such case, bloody froth also comes out from mouth and nostril. It is a fact that his 26 opinion mentioned in the postmortem report that death was due to manual strangulation of neck was purely on assumption. It is also a fact that due to highly decomposition of the dead body, he could not detect any injury either on neck or neck tissue. It is a fact that his opinion as to the cause of death was based on confessional statement of the accused. It is also a fact that due to highly decomposition of the body, he could not conduct proper postmortem.
Further stated that it is not legal for a doctor to submit a postmortem report based on the inquest report on the dead body prepared by the police officer. He has gone through the inquest report and has taken note of the point to be ascertained at the time of conduction postmortem. In his postmortem report submitted to the officer, he has not replied to those two points required to be ascertained by him after conducting postmortem examination of the dead body, it is his opinion that the cause of death is due to homicide. He was supplied the confessional statements of the three accused persons along with inquest report by the police officer whose name he did not remember now but he is a police officer. Based on said report, he prepared the postmortem report. There are three types of death namely, (1) Sucidial (2) Homicidal and (3) accidental. It cannot be accidental death. He did not know under what circumstances the manual strangulation has taken place, he imagined that the accused persons might have strangulated the victim to stop crying and shouting. It is possible that the victim boy succumbed to the gagging of his mouth by the accused persons to stop crying.
PW21 Smti. A.V.D. Shira, Magistrate stated that she was endorsed to record the statement of witness on 16.06.2006. On the same date she recorded the statement of one witness Ranjit Dutta and whatever he has stated is recorded which was read over to him and accepted, correct and put his signature. Ext.19 is the statement of Ranjit Dutta and Ext.19(2) is her (witness) signature in the statement.
27She also recorded the statement of Simpee Singh, Baliram Singh, Indu Singh on 26.06.206 and 28.06.2006 respectively and whatever they have stated which is recorded by her is the part of case record which was read over to them accepted and correct by putting their signatures. Ext.15 is the statement of Simpee Singh and Ext.15(2) is her (witness) signature. Ext.22 is the statement of Baliram Singh and Ext.22(1) is her (witness) signature. Ext.18 is the statement of Indu Singh and Ext.18(2) is her (witness) signature. She has also recorded the statements of Pradip Kumar Roy, Bipul Das, Diplu Mondal on 26.06.2006. Ext.12 is the statement of Diplu Mondal and Ext.12(2) is her (witness) signature. Ext.16 is the statement of Pradip Kumar Roy and Ext.16(2) is her (witness) signature. Ext.17 is the statement of Bipul Das and Ext.17(2) is her (witness) signature.
In the cross-examination she has stated that it is not a fact that the Investigating Officer supplied her questions for recording the statements of witness. After going through the case records, she put the questions and the witness answered accordingly. At the time of recording the statements, no police personnel were present. It is a fact that the Investigating Officer had sent the witness for recording their statements. It is not a fact that the Investigating Officer has directed the witness to say what they were to state before the Magistrate.
PW22 Shri Aloysious Ch. Marak, Magistrate has stated that since 04.11.2004 he was posted as EAC and Magistrate 1 st Class at D.C. office, Tura. On 18.06.2006 he got an order from ADM (J) Tura for recording confessional statement of accused Suraj Gupta, he recorded the confessional statement of Suraj Gupta on 26.06.2006 in his office chamber. The statement was given in English language and whatever he has stated is recorded which was read over to him accepted and put his signature. Ext.23 is the statement of accused Suraj Gupta recorded by him and Ext.23(1) is his (witness) signature.
28Before recording the statement, he had observed all the formalities and sufficient time for reflection was given to the accused Suraj Gupta.
In the cross-examination he has stated that accused Suraj Gupta was produced on 20.06.2006 at about 2:05 PM for recording his confessional statement. One police officer from PI office brought accused Suraj Gupta for recording his confessional statement. At the time of recording the statement, no police officer was present in his room. There was a police officer standing a bit far from the door. The question to the accused was put by him and recording was as per order of ADM (J).
PW23 Dowansing D. Sangma, Magistrate 1st Class has stated that since March 2003 till February 2007 he was posted at D.C. office Tura as EAC and Magistrate 1st Class. On 17.06.2006, he was endorsed to record the confessional statement of two accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar. On 22.06.2006, accused Ajay Das was produced before him for recording his confessional statement. He recorded his confessional statement which was read over to him did put his signature. Ext.24 is the statement of Ajay Das recorded by him and Ext.24(1) is his (witness) signature. On the next day i.e. 23.06.2006, he had also recorded the statement of accused Sobraj Sonar. The contents were read over to the accused which he admitted and then did put his signature. Ext.25 is the statement recorded by him and Ext.25(1) is his (witness) signature. On 03.07.2006 again he received an order from ADM (J) to record the statements of witness namely, Shri Nemson Marak, Shri Ashok Pandey, Shri Pramod Tiwari and Bibas Das,he recorded the statement of Nemson Marak on 04.07.2006. Ext.14 is the statement of Nimson Marak and Ext.14(2) is his (witness) signature. On 06.07.2006 he recorded the statement of Bibas Das vide Ext.4 and Ext.4(2) is his (witness) signature. He recorded the statement of Ashok Pandey on 12.07.2006 vide Ext.10 and Ext.10(2) is his (witness) signature and on 06.06.2006 he recorded 29 the statement of Pramod Tiwari vide Ext.1 and Ext.1(2) is his (witness) signature. Their statements which he had recorded are part of the case record.
In the cross-examination has stated that he had recorded the statement of the witnesses as Magistrate but he has not repeated the statement which he had recorded before the court.
PW24 S.I. Sankar Mahanta has stated that since 2002 he was posted at Tura police station as an attach officer and was posted as Town Sub-Inspector. On 28.05.2006, Officer-in-Charge, Tura police station received telephonic information about missing of one boy Bhaivab Singh of nine years old of Fancy Valley Tura. After receiving the information, they went to the house of the victim boy for confirming and to enquire about it. Enquiry and search was going on in and around Tura and also other places. In the meantime, they also got information that victim‟s family received anonymous phone call so they suspected that the boy was kidnapped. Thereafter, when the father of the victim boy who was in Guwahati came back to Tura received some phone calls from anonymous caller demanding ransom of Rs.10 lakhs and in another call Rs.50 lakhs as informed to them. Thereafter, team of officers started a thorough enquiry and in the course of enquiry as per sequence of information, the victim boy had been kidnapped by Suraj Gupta and others. On suspicion, one Diplu Mondal was picked up and interrogated and in the course of investigation, Diplu Mondal disclosed that as stated by Suraj Gupta he and two others Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das have kidnapped one minor boy. Prior to the investigation, FIR was lodged by him (witness) based on the source information that victim boy before missing had gone to the house of Suraj Gupta. Ext.26 is the FIR and Ext.26(1) is his (witness) signature. The case was registered as Tura PS Case No.52 (6) 2006 under Section 365 IPC and he was entrusted investigate of the case. During interrogation of Diplu Mondal in the office chamber of Deputy 30 Superintendent of Police, Diplu Mondal had given the telephone number of his roommate of Guwahati namely, Santu Roy where accused Suraj Gupta was also staying with him three to four months prior to the occurrence. In the course of investigation it was also found that Santu Roy was contacted on the same date by accused Ajay Das from PCO Tura so they searched and immediately Ajay Das was apprehended from Tura. On interrogation Ajay Das confessed that he (accused) along with Sobraj Sonar and Suraj Gupta had kidnapped the boy and murdered him before reaching Chinabati and after packing the dead body in a gunny bag threw it in a nearby deep gorge. Ajay Das is a driver who took Tata Indica car No.ML-08-A-3039 which belongs to Pradip Rai of Hawakhana. After receiving the information that the boy is murdered, he (witness) prayed for adding Sections 302/201 and 34 IPC.
The statement of Ajay Das was taken in presence of two independent witnesses vide Ext.6 and Ext.6(3) is his (witness) signature. Then thereafter, accused Sobraj Sonar was arrested at Rongram from incoming night super bus from Guwahati on being identified by accused Ajay Das. Sobraj Sonar was also interrogated, he confessed and his statement was also taken in presence of two independent witnesses. Ext.7 is the statement of Sobraj Sonar and Ext.7(3) is his (witness) signature and the accused also agreed to lead for recovery of dead body. On 02.06.2006, the dead body was recovered from nearby Sosatchigri on being led by the accused persons. The dead body was found packed in the gunny bag and one pair of Hawai chappal was found in the gunny bag. The dead body was recovered from deep gorge and brought up on the road level. The dead body was identified by victim‟s father and also other witnesses. Inquest was held over the dead body in presence of witnesses. Ext.11 is the inquest report and Ext.11(5) is his (witness) signature. He had also seized the gunny bag and the Hawai chappal as per seizure list in 31 presence of witnesses. Ext.5 is the seizure list and Ext.5(3) is his (witness) signature. Mat.Ext.1 is the gunny bag and Mat.Ext.2 is the victim‟s pair of chappal. He had also drawn the sketch map of place of occurrence from where the dead body was recovered vide Ext.13 and Ext.13(4) is his (witness) signature. Then, the dead body was brought to Tura Civil Hospital for postmortem. The vehicle which was used for commission of offence was seized by him as per seizure list vide Ext.2 and Ext.2(3) is his (witness) signature. The vehicle was seized along with the relevant documents. The owner of the vehicle also handed over to PW24 Rs.4000/- in 1000 denomination 2 (two) notes and 500 notes (four) nos. which he (owner) received as vehicle fare which PW24 seized in presence of witnesses. Ext.27 is the seizure list and Ext.27(1) is his (witness) signature. Mat.Ext.3 is the seized money. Vehicle was seized as the victim boy was taken in that vehicle and used for commission of offence.
Suraj Gupta was apprehended at Nongpoh by Ri-Bhoi police as per their requisition and handed over to them. He was also interrogated in presence of witnesses who confessed. He prayed for recording of their confessional statements by Magistrate. The confessional statements were recorded by the Magistrate. During their interrogation in police custody, Ajay Das had confessed that after taking out the gold ornaments 1(one) golden chain with locket and 1 (one) finger ring from the dead body, they (accused) sold it to a jewellery refinery shop at Lahtokia Guwahati and agreed to lead the police for recovery led by accused Ajay Das, he proceeded to Guwahati and seized the gold ornaments, which were already melted, from jewellery R.D. refinery shop. Ext.29 is the seizure list and Ext.29(1) is his (witness) signature. With the seizure of gold 1 (one) exercise book containing entries on purchase of gold ornaments were also seized as per the same seizure list. Mat.Ext.4 is the melted gold. Seized exercise book contains written clearance from Ajay Das, the 32 chain and ring belong to him (accused) at page No.59 and he put his signature in the declaration. Mat.Ext.5 is the declaration of sale of gold. In the course of investigation, one hotel register of Jain hotel, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati along with related documents were also seized by him (witness) vide Ext.8 and Ext.8(3) is his (witness) signature. After seizure, original were released to the hotel manager and Xerox copy was retained by him. Mat.Ext.7 is the Xerox copy of hotel visitor register containing two pages dated 29.05.2006 and also one money receipt. He also seized one PCO billing machine telephone set and one Xerox copy of page No.71 of telephone call recorded register of M.M. tele service from Ganeshguri, Guwahati. Ext.9 is the seizure list and Ext.9(3) is his (witness) signature. Mat.Ext.8 is the photocopy of page 71 of telephone call record. After seizing the telephone set, PCO billing machine with original bill register was returned to the concerned owner and Xerox copy is produced before the court. He also seized one cash memo book of Meghalaya Auto Agency of Hawakhana Tura and one Xerox copy of cash memo of Auto Agency because on the date of occurrence after kidnapping the boy, the accused persons purchased diesel for Tata Indica No.ML-08-A-3039 which was used for commission of the crime. The original cash memo book was returned to the concerned owner and Xerox copy is produced before the court. Ext.20 is the seizure list and Ext.20(4) is his (witness) signature in the seizure list. Mat.Ext.6 is the photo copies of cash memo book of Auto Agency in two pages.
At the time of recovery of dead body, photographs of the dead body were also taken which were produced before the court. Mat.Ext.12 are ten numbers of photographs of dead body of the victim in one album. He (witness) prayed for conducting TIP of accused persons which was allowed and TIP was conducted by the Magistrate Smti. A.V.D. Shira at District Jail, Tura. The witnesses Bipul Das, Diplu Mondal and Pradip Kr. Rai have identified the three accused 33 persons. Ext.29 is the TIP report. He also prayed for recording of the statement of witnesses by the Magistrate. He also recorded the statement of witnesses and have also collected the postmortem report from the concerned doctor and submitted along with the charge sheet. Ext.21 is the postmortem report submitted by the concerned doctor. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet along with all exhibits as per the list exhibited in the court. Ext.30 is the charge sheet and Ext.30(1) is his (witness) signature. The charge sheet contains six pages. The charge sheet was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against all the three accused persons.
In the cross-examination has stated that he himself filed the FIR, charge sheet as well as examined all the witnesses. He examined 28 witnesses and submitted along with the charge sheet. He did not know how many witnesses were examined before the court. Led by the accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar, he reached to the place of occurrence where the dead body was lying. It is not a fact that the two accused persons Sobraj Sonar and Ajay Das were not present at the time of recovery of the dead body. The dead body was not disinterred as it was not buried it was found in the gunny bag. The gunny bag was earlier exhibited and yesterday he saw only tight packing. Postmortem was conducted and submitted the report along with the charge sheet. The vehicle which he (accused) used ML-08-A-3039 Tata Indica is not a taxi but a private car. There is no case instituted against the owner of the vehicle under M.V. Act. He has tried to identify the telephone number caller and he has seized one PCO phone set in this regard. While the suspects were arrested, they confessed voluntarily before the police in presence of witnesses and also agreed to lead to the recovery of dead boy and also the gold ornaments of the dead body which were sold at Guwahati. At the time of their confession, the accused persons were at Tura police station and witnesses who heard the statement were also at the police station. He himself was also at the police 34 station and he put the question. He did not torture the accused persons in the police station.
Defence witnesses:
DW1 Suraj Gupta (accused) appeared before the learned Trial Court on his request and stated:-
He wishes to depose as defence witness for which permission has been granted then stated that he has been lodged in jail for seven years and two months. He was a student of Guwahati Commerce College doing B.Com his father was an employee of Indian Reserve Battalion. He studied up to matric in Tura which he passed in 2001. After matriculation, he went to Shillong and studied in Shankar Dev College up to Class-XII and then for graduation went to Guwahati. During his schooling days, he used to take drug, liquor etc. in company of his friend. In Shillong he continued using drug, smoking and drinking liquor along with other friends. He used to take marijuana, SP, nitrosamine, opium etc. The cost of drug was borne by his friend and sometime by him. Her mother did not know about his bad habit. He further stated that he is ardent fan of Hindi cinema.
While staying at Guwahati took a rented accommodation with two others, Diplu Mondal and Santanu Roy. His (accused‟s) father did not give him sufficient money. At Guwahati his personal expenses had gone very high. He thought seriously of getting some bigger amount and decided to kidnap some person as he was influenced by such action of kidnapping in films. He used to talk to his friends at school Sobraj Sonar and others and discussed about kidnapping. Sobraj Sonar was also taking drug he also expressed financial problems and they thought of raising fund but for executing the plan, he was introduced to Ajay Das by Sobraj Sonar as they needed a driver to execute the secret plan. After meeting they zeroed their neighbour Bhaivab Singh whose father Baliram Singh is rich in the locality being a rice dealer at Tura Bazar. According to the plan, Ajay Das was to arrange a car. The 35 plan was to be executed on 26.05.2006 due to many visitors coming to the locality programme was postponed and re-fixed on 28.05.2006.
On 28.05.2006 morning briefly discussed and confirmed about the possibility of the vehicle, in the evening, at 5:30 PM, Sobraj Sonar came to meet him took benefit of the darkness asked Ajay Das to bring the vehicle at 7:00 PM to Gourimod. The victim boy came to his compound to play cricket with his brother and some other boys in his locality. As it was getting dark, he asked Bhaivab Singh for roaming since he had to go to Guwahati, he took his bag taking a narrow road and reached the vehicle along with Sobraj Sonar and victim boy while Ajay Das was already in the vehicle. Thereafter, taking Hawakhana road crossing the main town they reached Hawakhana petrol pump filled fuel and then took Chandmari road to Williamnagar boy started to cry they became nervous and Sobraj Sonar closed the mouth of the boy he vomited and then started crying. The boy was motionless staying in a corner and not talking and shouting. Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar told him that it seems the boy was dead he became anxious as to what had happened as they had to get the ransom and nothing else. Then they threw the boy into a nearby stream. Before the dead body was put in a gunny bag, Ajay Das had taken out gold ring and gold necklace from the neck of the boy and kept the same in his pocket. They did not know where the gunny bag had landed. Thereafter, all the three accused proceeded to Guwahati and reached Paltan Bazar at around 3:30 AM and stayed in a hotel at Guwahati. They tried to contact the family of the boy did not succeed, then, on the next day Ajay Das (accused) contacted the father of the boy and demanded Rs.50 lakhs from him for release of the boy.
On 30.05.2006 they did sent back the vehicle to Tura through Ajay Das and taxi fare of Rs.4500/-. The gold items as were removed from the body of the victim were sold to a gold merchant at refinery shop for Rs.6000/-. Out of which Rs.4500/- were paid to Ajay Das as 36 taxi fare for three days and balance amount was kept for personal use. Then he has given all the details about stay in hotel and then got arrested.
In the cross-examination of PP stated that he did not kill the boy nor had asked other accused persons to kill the boy their intention was to kidnap the boy to get some money as ransom. Kidnap for ransom is his brainchild. He (accused), Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar together planned and executed the kidnapping of the boy to demand ransom from his father.
In the cross-examination of counsel for Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar has stated that it is a fact that he along with Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar kidnapped the boy. The entire kidnapping and demanding ransom was made by him and co-accused assisted him. When the boy was crying in the vehicle he asked Sobraj Sonar to close his mouth. While reaching at Chinabat the victim boy became totally unconscious.
DW2 Ajay Das (accused) examined at his request by the learned Trial Court has stated:-
That his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. It is a fact that the victim boy was crying, Suraj Gupta instructed Sobraj Sonar to stop crying by closing the mouth of the victim boy, same was done. While reaching Chinabat, the victim boy became totally unconscious they (accused) got scared took a gunny bag did put the boy inside the bag and threw him into a nearby jungle.
In the cross-examination of PP has stated that the victim boy started crying when they crossed Hawakhana petrol pump. While reaching Chinabat the victim boy was totally silent his eyes were closed and he thought that the victim boy was dead. The gunny bag used for packing the boy was in the car containing some tolls. All three of them (accused) had put the body in the gunny bag when he 37 was unconscious but he could not say whether the boy was alive or dead.
In the cross-examination of the counsel for Suraj Gupta has stated that he contacted the owner of the vehicle who agreed to give the vehicle as he was known to him. When the victim boy started crying and shouting, Suraj Gupta told Sobraj Sonar who was sitting with the boy at the back seat to stop shouting and crying by closing his (victim boy) mouth. While reaching Chinabat they found the victim boy was motionless. The gunny bag which was used for packing the body of the victim boy was in the dickey of the vehicle containing some tools of the vehicle. After removing the tools from the gunny bag used the gunny bag for packing the dead body.
DW3 Sobraj Sonar (accused) appeared on his own choice before the learned Trial Court was examined precisely has stated that he along with Ajay Das and Suraj Gupta made a plan to kidnap the victim boy for ransom so kidnapped him on 28.05.2006 from Fancy Valley, Tura. The victim boy started crying Suraj Gupta asked him to stop the victim boy from crying he closed the mouth of the victim boy he started vomiting and after sometime he became motionless they (accused) became nervous. While reaching Chinabat they stopped the vehicle and checked the victim boy took him out put him in a gunny bag and threw the dead body into a nearby jungle then came back to Guwahati and stayed there. Ajay Das gave telephonic call to the father of the victim boy as instructed by Suraj Gupta and demanded Rs.50 lakhs. When they realized that police were in search of them they became nervous. He (Sobraj Sonar) was apprehended by the police at Rongram and then he was taken along with Ajay Das to recover the dead body. Accordingly, the dead body was recovered from Chinabat. At the time of the incident they used to take drug and under influence of drug they committed the crime.38
In the cross examination of PP has stated that Suraj Gupta was the leader of the group and he (accused) was the executor. He closed the mouth of the victim boy as was directed by Suraj Gupta. Ransom call was made by Ajay Das from Guwahati and at that time he was standing outside the PCO.
In the cross-examination of the counsel for Suraj Gupta has stated that since he was sitting near the victim boy at the back seat of the driver, Suraj Gupta asked him to close the mouth of the victim boy. If the gunny bag which was used for carrying the tools would not have been available, they would have thrown the body without the gunny bag. Their plan was only to get ransom and not murder. They wanted to implement their programme for ransom of money but closing of mouth resulted in the unfortunate incident and thus their programme failed.
16. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Advocate General at length, perused the entire record, on proper appreciation of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence what emerged is that all the three accused were in need of money so as to meet the expenses of their bad habits i.e. for drug, liquor, cinema etc. so hatched a conspiracy to target any person, in the process accused Suraj Gupta noticing that his neighbour Shri Baliram Singh father of the victim is rich in the locality thought of kidnapping his son (victim) for ransom. On 28.05.2006 accused Ajay Das was asked to arrange the vehicle and to reach to a point in Tura wherefrom victim who was friendly with Suraj Gupta was picked up and carried him to Williamnagar side. When the victim boy started crying his mouth was gagged got motionless was put in a gunny bag and thrown into a deep gorge at Chinabat.
17. It shall be beneficial to notice the circumstances, connecting the accused with the commission of offences and evidence in support thereof:-39
Circumstance No.1:-
Bhaivab Singh (victim boy) used to go to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) frequently. He (victim boy) had gone to the house of Suraj Gupta on 28.05.2006 but did not return to his house.
PW2 Bibas Ch Das in this behalf has stated that he along with other neighbours went to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) because the victim boy used to frequently visit his house and he was friendly with the younger brother of Suraj Gupta but mother of Suraj Gupta informed that the victim boy had already left.
PW11 Simpee Singh (sister of the victim boy) in this behalf has stated that Bhaivab Singh (victim boy) was her younger brother who frequently used to visit the house of accused Suraj Gupta for playing as he was very close and friendly with accused Suraj Gupta. On 28.05.2006, Bhaivab Singh went to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) for playing at about 4:00 PM and at about 5:30 PM, her mother asked her to bring her brother home. She went to the compound and found her brother was playing with accused Suraj Gupta and his younger brother.
PW14 Jitendra Prasad Barman in this behalf has stated that on 28.05.2006 at about 7:30 PM, mother of the victim boy called his daughter as she was panicked because her son had gone to Suraj Gupta house but had not returned.
PW16 Smti. Indu Devi Singh (mother of the victim) in this behalf has stated that on 28.05.2006 her son had gone to the house of Suraj Gupta (accused) to play with him and his younger brother. At around 4:00 PM, she called her child (victim boy) who demanded suji. She prepared suji for the victim boy. While feeding suji to the victim boy younger brother of Suraj Gupta called him again for playing and her son went to the house of Suraj Gupta. She heard cries of her son, she sent her daughter to the house of Suraj Gupta where mother of Suraj Gupta told her that they are watching wrestling movie and he 40 (victim boy) just shouted. Then again she sent her daughter to bring him back but Suraj Gupta‟s mother told her that Bhaivab Singh had already left. She further stated that her son frequently used to visit Suraj Gupta‟s house for playing. This way victim boy got missed. Circumstance No.2:-
Accused Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar had bad habit of consuming drug and used to drink, for ransom they kidnapped the victim boy.
PW5 Diplu Mondal with whom accused Suraj Gupta used to stay at Guwahati in a rented room has stated in the cross-examination of defence counsel that Suraj Gupta (accused) used to take drug and did not suspect that Suraj Gupta would commit such a serious crime. He (witness) also stated that accused Sobraj Sonar used to talk about kidnapping and killing. PW2 Bibas Ch. Das also stated that Suraj Gupta used to take drug so suspected he might have taken the boy around Tura bazar.
Circumstance No.3:-
Accused Ajay Das arranged the vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039 which was used for kidnapping the victim boy.
In this behalf what the prosecution witnesses have stated is as under:-
PW12 Bipul Das has stated that on 28.05.2006, accused Ajay Das took the vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039 to Guwahati with the permission of the owner (Pradeep Roy) for carrying Sobraj Sonar‟s grandmother for treatment. Ajay Das (accused) was allowed to drive the vehicle and key was handed over to him. Accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar requested the vehicle owner to allow them to take the vehicle to Guwahait which was allowed. On 02.06.2006, the vehicle owner (Pradeep Roy) heard that the said vehicle was used by Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar for kidnapping and murdering of one boy.
PW13 Pradeep Kumar Roy (owner of the vehicle) has stated that accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar are known to him. The 41 vehicle was hired by Sobraj Sonar to take one patient to Guwahati. He (witness) knew Ajay Das very well because he used to drive his vehicle in the absence of his permanent driver. On 28.05.2006, Ajay Das came and requested him (witness) to allow him to take the vehicle for carrying one patient for treatment. He trusted Ajay Das and handed over the key with the instruction to take proper care of the vehicle. On
29.05.2006, Ajay Das rang him and informed that he had reached Guwahati and will reach back Tura in the evening of 30.05.2006. Circumstance No.4:-
Filling of diesel in vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039.
In this behalf PW17 Hanuman Sharma has stated that on 28.05.2006 his duty was at Meghalaya Auto Agency at Tura Hawakhana. At around 8:00 PM one Indica vehicle No.ML-08-A-
3039 came to their auto agency purchased 33.2 liters of diesel and paid for the same. On 26.06.2006 police from Tura P.S. came and seized Xerox copy of cash memo book from the Manager of Meghalaya Auto Agency Suhmal Sagoni. Ext.20 is the seizure list.
PW 18 Sukmal Sogani has stated that on 26.06.2019 police from Tura P.S. came to our agency seized the cash memo book relating to sale of diesel from 27.05.2006 to 30.05.2006. Ext.20 is the seizure list. Police seized Xerox copy of cash memo book relating to sale of diesel on 28.05.2006 to one vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039.
PW 19 Atindra Das has stated that police from Tura P.S. came to Meghalaya Auto Agency and asked the manager to produce and furnish the cash memo book of the agency relating to sale of diesel from 27.05.2006 to 30.05.2006. Xerox copy of cash memo book vide Ext.20 was seized.
Circumstance No.5:-
Confessional statements of the three accused persons as proved by PWs 22 and 23.42
In the confessional statement recorded by PW22 Shri A.C. Marak, Magistrate accused Suraj Gupta has stated that he along with Ajay Das and SobrajSonar had planned to kidnap a boy who resides adjacent to his house. On 28.05.2006 at about 7:30 PM got the opportunity to take the boy in a hired car Tata Indica No.ML-08-A- 3039. They filled fuel and drove the vehicle towards Williamnagar. After covering halfway, they killed the boy. Sobraj Sonar (accused) strangulated the victim boy. Ajay Das (accused) stood guard to see if anybody was coming. The victim boy was put in a gunny bag and thrown in a deep gorge then they left for Guwahati along with gold necklaces and gold finger ring which was stripped out by Ajay Das and same was sold for a sum of Rs.6000/- with the aid of their friend Diphlu Mondal who took them to the goldsmith at Guwahati. On 29.05.2006 they tried to contact boy‟s father Shri Baliram Singh for ransom of Rs.50 lakhs but could not contact him on that day.
However, they were able to contact him on 30.05.2006 at around 11:00 AM and demanded Rs.50 lakhs. In the same evening, accused Suraj Gupta contacted his mother at 4:00 PM who told him that police was in search of him, getting nervous he left for Shillong on 01.06.2006 whereas, Sobraj Sonar stayed back at Guwahati and Ajay Das brought back the car to Tura. He (Suraj Gupta) stayed in Ashoka Hotel in Shillong along with his roommateSantanu Roy. He (accused) was coming back to Tura on 02.06.2006 along with Santanu Roy but while reaching Nongpoh, police rounded him and on identification of Santanu Roy was arrested. He further stated that it was an accident because he had never done such a thing before. The statement has been proved and exhibited as Ext.23.
Accused Ajay Das in his confessional, statement which has been proved by PW23 Shri Dowansing D. Sangma, Magistrate 1st Class who recorded his statement exhibited as Ext.24, has stated that while celebrating Ashtopohow puja at Shakurbari, Tura, Suraj Gupta 43 had a planned to kidnap Baivabh Singh to demand money for his release then to share the amount amongst them. Firstly, Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar did not disclose the plan in detail to him (Ajay Das) they (accused) simply told him to arrange vehicle for the purpose.Two weeks before the time of kidnapping, they disclosed the plan to him, he got a chance to meet Pradeep Roy owner of the vehicle Tata Indica No.ML-08-A-3039 and contacted him for hiring his vehicle for going to Guwahati on 28.05.2006 which he agreed and hiring charge was Rs.4500/-. Then he (Ajay Das) contacted Pradeep Roy on 27.05.2006 by telling him (Pradeep Roy) a lie that the grandmother of Sobraj Sonar was suffering so they have to take her to Guwahati. On 28.05.2006 at about 5:00PM he parked the vehicle at Fancy Valley, Tura waited for Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar. Then at about 6:00 PM he went to the house of Suraj Gupta and told him to be ready as early as possible. At about 7:10 PM, Sobraj Sonar came and told him to drive the vehicle to Gaurimod a place near Naikham Bazar, Tura. At about 7:20 PM, Sobraj Sonar went to the house of Suraj Gupta. At about 7:30 PM, Suraj Gupta, Baivabh Singh and Sobraj Sonar came boarded the vehicle, Suraj Gupta told the boy that he would give him ice cream if he would accompany them. The boy boarded the vehicle they started driving towards Guwahati. While reaching Hawakhana A.O.C. Tura filled diesel in the vehicle and when they reached Asanang drove through Williamnagar road upto Chinabati. On reaching Chinabat they stopped the vehicle and Sobraj Sonar killed the boy then removed his golden finger ring and golden chain locket and kept in his (Ajay Das) pocket. They packed the boy in a gunny bag and threw it in a deep gorge and drove towards Guwahati. On reaching Guwahati at about 4:00 AM of 29.05.2006 stayed in Jain Hotel at Paltan Bazar, Guwahati for two days upto 30.05.2006. On 29.05.2006, Suraj Gupta called through telephone his friend Diphlu Mondal to help them in selling the finger ring and chain. Diphlu Mondal was unaware 44 of the incident helped them to sell the ring and chain in a gold refinery shop at Laktokia at Pan Bazar for a sum of Rs.6000/-. On 30.05.2006, Rs.4000/- for hiring charges of the vehicle which were paid to Pradeep Roy owner of the vehicle by Ajay Das. At about 6:00 PM, he started coming back to Tura. In the morning of 31.05.2006, he handed over the key and the vehicle to the driver of Pradeep Roy. On 01.06.2006 he enquired about Suraj Gupta and Sobraj Sonar. Then at about 6:30 PM when he was coming from Bazar was arrested by the police at Gourimod, Tura and was taken to Rongram. The night super bus from Shillong reached there he saw Sobraj Sonar and on his identification Sobraj Sonar was arrested. Police took him and Sobraj Sonar to Chinabat and he identified the spot wherefrom the dead body was thrown. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered from a deep gorge.
Statement of Sobraj Sonar recorded under Section 164 CrPC, during trial has also been proved PW23 Shri Dowansing D. Sangma, Magistrate 1st Class same has been exhibited as Ext.25. Sobraj Sonar has stated that he and Suraj Gupta planned to kidnap the victim boy for ransom. The said plan was disclosed to Ajay Das later on and Ajay Das was entrusted to arrange one vehicle for the purpose. When Ajay Das had arranged the vehicle No.ML-08-A-3039 of Pradeep Roy, Ajay Das brought the vehicle and parked at Gourimod. He and Suraj Gupta brought the victim boy telling him that they would give him an ice cream he boarded the vehicle. Ajay Das drove the vehicle and on reaching A.O.C. Hawakhana they filled diesel in the vehicle and moved towards Guwahati. Before reaching Chinabat the vehicle was parked. He held the neck of the boy and strangulated him till death. Ajay Das removed the finger ring and chain worn by the boy and put in his pocket. The dead body was put in a gunny bag and thrown down in a deep gorge. Further, he has stated that while reaching Guwahati they took help of Diphlu Mondal for selling of finger ring and chain as was removed from the dead body. Then they demanded Rs.50 lakhs 45 for release of the boy. He and Ajay Das went along with the police and identified the place wherefrom the boy was thrown in a deep gorge same was recovered but was decomposed.
Circumstance No.6:-
Victim boy was wearing a gold ring and chain locket, sale and recovery thereof.
PW 16 (mother of the victim boy) has stated that when the victim boy went missing, he was wearing a gold ring and chain locket.
PW5 Diplu Mondal has stated that Ajay Das showed him one gold chain and finger ring sought help to dispose of the same by stating that they have brought one patient to GNRC, Guwahati but they are short of money. In search of gold jewellery they reached Laktokia Bazar where the said ornaments were sold at Rs.6000/-.
PW15 Ranjit Dutta has stated that Ajay Das came to his jewellery shop to sell one gold chain with locket and one finger ring of minor child. He (Ajay Das) was accompanied by another person. He enquired from them about the jewellery as to whether it was a stolen or not, they told that Ajay Das mother is sick and under treatment that is why they are selling the gold chain and finger ring. The gold items were about 10 grams and he paid Rs.6000/-. A written declaration from Ajay Das was obtained before money was paid. The gold was given to Biswajit Bosah for melting and refining. Suddenly on 27.06.2006 police from Tura P.S. on being led by accused Ajay Das came to his jewellery shop and enquired as reported by Biswajit Bosah but he was not present at that time when police came. His employee Biswajit Bosah handed over the melted gold and also the written document for sale of gold to the police. Police seized the melted gold and one exercise hardbound binding book in which he used to maintain record of selling and preparing of gold ornaments.
Circumstance No.7: -
Recovery of dead body.46
Inquest report Ext.11, it is mentioned that on leading by the accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar, inquest over the dead body of deceased Baivabh Singh was done in presence of two marginal witnesses. The dead body being of Bhaivab Singh Singh was identified by his father Baliram Singh.
PW1 Promod Tiwari in this behalf has stated that on 06.06.2006 he and Bibas Das went to Tura P.S., I/O called them inside the police station. Ajay Das (accused) stated that he along with Sobraj Sonar and Suraj Gupta kidnapping the boy from the house of Suraj Gupta. While making their statement, Ajay Das led to the place of recovery of the dead body.
PW2 Bibas Ch.Das in this behalf has stated that the dead body of the victim boy was recovered from Chinabat on being led by accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar.
PW3 Ashok Pandey in this behalf has stated that when accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar were interrogated by the I/O, he and one Nemson Marak were present they stated that they will show the police where they had thrown the dead body. These two persons I/O and one Nemson Marak went for recovery of dead body on being led by the accused persons. On reaching the place of occurrence they saw the spot where the accused had thrown the dead body. Then, with the help of some local labourers, the dead body was recovered which was decomposed and smelling.
PW7 Nemson Marak in this behalf has stated that on 02.06.2006 police recorded the statement of Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar in his presence they stated that they can lead the police for recovery of dead body. On 02.06.2006 on being led by the accused Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar they proceeded to the place of occurrence along with the police and other witnesses namely, Ashok Pandey and Baliram Singh. On reaching the spot, the accused persons did show the police the place where-from dead body was thrown, same was 47 recovered from the deep gorge. Thereafter, father of the deceased identified the dead body. The dead body was packed in a gunny bag.
18. All links taken together fully established that the victim boy was kidnapped and killed by the three accused persons. Prosecution on its own footing has succeeded in proving the commission of the crime. Depositions of the witnesses have not been shaken nor their credibility has been impeached.
19. The case as proved by the prosecution is also further supported by the statements of three accused persons recorded by the learned Trial Court.
20. The three accused persons out of their own will and on their request were permitted to appear as their own witnesses so were examined as DWs 1, 2 and 3 and have given the sequence of events as to how they started the plan of getting money. Unfortunately, neighbour of Suraj Gupta according to him being rich was targeted as his son (Vaibhab Singh) was kidnapped and in the process killed.
21. The first contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Trial Court has not complied with the mandatory requirement envisaged by Section 313 CrPC. All the incriminating circumstances were required to be put to the accused (appellants) to enable them to explain their position thereto. Supporting his contention has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Ganesh Gogoi v. State of Assam reported in (2009) 7 SCC 404, Ranvir Jadav v. State of Bihar: (2009) 6 SCC 595 and Basavaraj R. Patil & ors v. State of Karnataka & ors: (2000) 8 SCC 740.
22. The said contention as raised by learned counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced. Perusal of the record, more particularly the examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC by the learned Trial Court leave no scope for the appellants to contend that they were not given chance to explain as against the incriminating circumstances.
23. It shall be quite advantageous to quote (I) para 20 of the 48 judgment reported in (2009) 7 SCC 404, (II) para 9 of the judgment reported in (2009) 6 SCC 595 and (III) paras 19 and 20 from the judgment reported in (2000) 8 SCC 740 as hereunder:-
(I). "20. The provisions of Section 313 are for the benefit of the accused and are there to give the accused an opportunity to explain the "circumstances appearing in the evidence against him". In Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka1:
[(2000) 8 SCC 740: 2001 SCC (Cri) 87] this Court held that those provisions are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit. These provisions are based on the salutary principles of natural justice and the maxim "audi alteram partem" has been enshrined in them. Therefore, the examination under Section 313 has to be of utmost fairness. But that has not been done here. This is also a factor vitiating the trial."
(II) "9. "The purpose of Section 313 of the Code is set out in its opening words - „for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.‟ In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat1 (AIR 1953 SC 468) it has been laid down by Bose, J. that the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code „are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial‟. It was pointed out that:
(AIR p.470, para 8) „8. ..... The statements of the accused recorded by the committing magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box [and that] they have to be received in evidence and treated as evidence and be duly considered at the trial‟. This position remains unaltered even after the insertion of Section 315 in the Code and any statement under Section 313 has to be considered in the same way as if Section 315 is not there.
13. The object of examination under this Section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus.
14. The word „generally‟ in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the 49 question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused‟s failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give.
15. The importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 313 of the Code cannot be too strongly stressed:
„30. ..... It is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material substance which is intended to be used against him. ..... The questioning must therefore be fair and couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. ..... Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand."
(III) "19. Thus it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to benefit the accused and as its corollary to benefit the court in reaching the final conclusion.
20. At the same time it should be borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim audi alteram partem. The word "may" in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in Section 313 of the Code indicates, without any doubt, that even if the court does 50 not put any question under that clause the accused cannot raise any grievance of it. But if the court fails to put the needed question under clause (b) of the sub-section it would result in a handicap to the accused and he can legitimately claim that no evidence, without affording him the opportunity to explain, can be used against him. It is now well settled that a circumstance about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be used against him."
24. While applying the law as has been laid down, we have perused the evidence, all the incriminating circumstances have been put to the accused in a fair manner and it was for the accused to tender their explanations instead the accused No.1 Suraj Gupta to all the incriminating circumstances has stated that (I have nothing to say). Accused Ajay Das too has failed to tender his explanation against the incriminating circumstances against him. Examination of the accused in terms of Section 313 CrPC has been recorded fairly there is no violation of any of right of the accused/appellants. The examination of the accused as recorded by the Trial Court is in consonance with the principles as laid down in the judgments as referred to above.
25. Next contention by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the conviction is based on inferences and assumption linked with the answers to the incriminating circumstances by the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC same is not true. Conviction has been recorded on the basis of material and evidence supporting the same as referred to hereinabove in details. Conviction by no means has been recorded on any assumption.
26. Next it was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that conviction has been recorded solely on the basis of confessional statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 164 CrPC and explanation of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 CrPC and then on the basis of the statements of the accused persons recorded by the learned Trial Court. This contention again is not correct because hosts of circumstances i.e. (i) plan to kidnap the boy 51 for ransom; (ii) recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused persons (Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar); (iii) removal of golden necklace and golden ring from the dead body by accused Ajay Das and its sale;
(iv) recovery of the said gold from jeweler; and (v) seizure of vehicle used for commission of the crime, are fully proved. On the basis of which, conviction has been recorded same position has been strengthened by the statements of three accused persons, who on their own request appeared as their own witnesses and examined as DWs 1, 2 and 3. All the links connecting the accused with the commission of the crime have been also fully proved by them.
27. Contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the confessional statements of Suraj Gupta, Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar recorded under Section 164 CrPC were not recorded in accordance with the requirement of Section 164 CrPC. The said submission of learned counsel for the appellants is totally misplaced. Shri Aloysious Ch. Marak, First Class Magistrate (PW22) who has recorded the confessional statement of Suraj Gupta (accused) has observed all the necessary procedures before recording the statement as is clear from the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In our view, the mandatory requirement of apprising the accused about the effect of his statement and caution that he is not bound to make any such statement has been followed. It is only thereafter statement was recorded which is fully supported by PW22 (Magistrate). The statement as was recorded by him (PW22) under Section 164 CrPC exhibited is Ext.23. In the cross-examination of the accused, he has stated that at the time of recording statement, no police officer was present in the court room whatever accused stated same was recorded.
28. Similarly, Dowansing D. Sangma, Magistrate First Class who has recorded the statements of Ajay Das and Sobraj Sonar under Section 164 CrPC, was examined as PW23, has made it clear in his deposition that whatever the said two accused persons have voluntarily 52 stated same was recorded. Ext.24 is the statement of Ajay Das and Ext.25 of Sobraj Sonar. The statements of PWs 22 and 23 (Magistrates) leave no scope for the appellants to contend that the statements under Section 164 CrPC were not recorded in tune with the requirement of Section 164 CrPC. Reliance as placed on the judgment reported in (2006) 12 SCC 268 in the light of the statements of PWs22 and 23 support the case of the prosecution. Paras 12 and 18 of the said judgment reported in (2006) 12 SCC 268 are relevant to be quoted:-
"12. A judicial confession undoubtedly is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. A judgment of conviction can also be based on a confession if it is found to be truthful, deliberate and voluntary and if clearly proved. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged on the basis of the entire prosecution case. (See Bharat v. State of U.P.1: (1971) 3 SCC 950: 1972 SCC (Cri) 198 and Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras2:1958 SCR 428: AIR 1958 SC 66: 1958 Cri LJ 238).
18. In Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam6 [(2004) 7 SCC 779: 2004 SCC (Cri) 2081: AIR 2004 SC 4197] this Court opined: (SCC pp.787-88, paras 17-19) "17[16.] The foremost amongst the factors that are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is the retracted confession of the appellant recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The confession has been extracted supra in verbatim. Before acting on a confession made before a Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 164, the Court must be satisfied first that the procedural requirements laid down in sub-sections (2) to (4) are complied with. These are salutary safeguards to ensure that the confession is made voluntarily by the accused after being apprised of the implications of making such confession. Looking at the confessional statement (Ext.8) coupled with the evidence of PW 22, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji, we have no doubt in our mind that the procedural requirements have been fulfilled. Inter alia, PW 22 deposed that after cautioning the accused that the confessional statement, if made, will be used in evidence against them, he gave three hours time for reflection during which the accused were kept in a room attached to the Court in the immediate presence of an office peon. PW22 further stated that it appeared to him that the accused made the 53 statement voluntarily. A memorandum as required by sub- section (4) was also recorded. Thus the first requirement for acting on a confession is satisfied but that is not the end of the matter. The Court, called upon to consider the evidence against the accused, should still see whether there are any circumstances appearing from the record which may cast a doubt on the voluntary nature of the confession. The endeavor of the Court should be to apply its mind to the question whether the accused was free from threat, duress or inducement at the time of making the confession. In doing so, the Court should bear in mind, the principle enunciated in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan7: [1963 Supp (1) SCR 689: AIR 1963 SC 1094: 1963 2 Cri LJ 178] that under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, a stringent rule of proof as to the existence of threat, duress or inducement should not be applied and a prima facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the standard laid down. To put it in other words, „on the evidence and the circumstances in a particular case it may appear to the Court that there was a threat, inducement or promise, though the said fact is not strictly proved‟ (SCR p.693).
18[17.] Having thus reached a finding as to voluntary nature of a confession, the truth of the confession should then be tested by the Court. The fact that the confession has been made voluntarily, free from threat and inducement, can be regarded as presumptive evidence of its truth. Still, there may be circumstances to indicate that the confession cannot be true wholly or partly in which case it loses much of its evidentiary value.
19[18.] In order to be assured of the truth of confession, this Court, in a series of decisions, has evolved a rule of prudence that the Court should look to corroboration from other evidence. However, there need not be corroboration in respect of each and every material particular. Broadly, there should be corroboration so that the confession taken as a whole fits into the facts proved by other evidence. In substance, the Court should have assurance from all angles that the retracted confession was, in fact, voluntary and it must have been true."
29. Applying to the law to the facts of this case, it is quite clear that the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC of all the three accused persons in the manner and method clearly indicate that spirit of Section 164 CrPC has been adhered to.
5430. The confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC of the three accused persons, in effect, is additional evidence corroborating the prosecution case. In this behalf following portions from para 16 of the judgment reported in (1994) 2 SCC 467 is relevant to be quoted: -
"16. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it so long as its admissibility is not excluded by some provision of law. .....
***** ***** ***** ..... Under Section 164 CrPC a statement or confession made in the course of an investigation, may be recorded by a Magistrate, subject to the safeguards imposed by the section itself and can be relied upon at the trial."
31. Position of the said statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and proved further get supported by the statements of the accused recorded by the learned Trial Court, who with the permission of the Court in terms of Section 315 CrPC appeared on their own as defence witnesses i.e. DWs 1, 2 and 3.
32. Next contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that last seen theory is imaginary. The argument is without substance because last seen theory is one of the circumstances which circumstance too has been proved and even in absence of that circumstance, other circumstances are such which connect the accused with the commission of the crime. There is no break in the chain to take a different view.
PW11 Simpee Singh (elder sister of the deceased) has clearly deposed that she had seen her brother in the compound of Suraj Gupta (accused) just before kidnapping. She has also qualified that she had seen two other accused who were standing on the road side whom she had identified in the Trial Court when she was examined as witness. PW16 Smti. Indu Devi Singh (mother of the deceased) has also proved that the victim boy was last seen in the compound of Suraj Gupta (accused). True it is that last seen is not the final word about commission of the crime by the accused but all incriminating 55 circumstances as taken note of hereinabove, when taken together leave no scope to doubt about the boy having been seen in the company of the accused.
33. As last ditch effort, learned counsel for the appellant tried to project that the accused persons had no intention to kill the boy, the intention was to kidnap for ransom. The death as occurred was accidental. Firstly, the contention is not consistent with the evidence because the method adopted for kidnapping a young boy of nine years of age, then, manner in which he was treated while being carried in the vehicle, then, gagging his mouth till he became motionless, then, removing gold ring from his finger and gold necklace and then, putting him in a gunny bag and throwing the dead body in a deep gorge, leave no room to doubt the intention of the accused persons regarding murder of the boy. That apart, once it is the contention that kidnapping was for ransom then still punishment for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC is death or imprisonment for life and also fine as it is also prescribed for Section 302 IPC. Firstly, there is no scope to take a view that the intention was not to kill and even if taken still for kidnapping for ransom, the accused (appellants) are to be sentenced either to death or life imprisonment and also fine.
34. The chain of circumstances as indicated hereinabove as fully proved only tend to show that kidnapping and murder has been committed only by the accused persons and none else.
35. The three accused persons appeared on their own request with the permission of the Court as defence witnesses, they in categorical terms have given the sequence of events i.e. their bad habits of taking drug, drinking liquor, financial difficulty, to meet the expenses and plan for kidnapping that too for ransom, noticing the father of the victim to be rich targeting the victim boy by kidnapping him, removing golden necklace and golden ring from his finger, selling of the same at Guwahati jewellery shop is fully proved by PW5 Diplu 56 Mondal, PW15 Ranjeet Dutta (owner of jewellery shop), who clearly stated that Ajay Das came to his jewellery shop and sold gold chain with locket and one gold finger ring of one minor child on 29.05.2006,then hiring of the vehicle used for kidnapping.
36. Accused persons appeared themselves as defence witnesses and were examined as DWs 1, 2 and 3, tried to project that they only intended to kidnap for ransom never intended to kill the boy, the object was to get out of the punishment prescribed under Section 302 IPC perhaps not knowing that punishment for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC carries same punishment i.e. death or life imprisonment and also fine.
37. We are in agreement with learned Advocate General that the prosecution has proved the case beyond any shadow of doubt same was further supported by the accused when they of their own got examined as defence witnesses before the learned Trial Court.
38. Horrible, gruesome crime i.e. kidnapping and murder of a 9 (nine) years old minor boy for ransom in the manner, method and reason for which committed is a challenge to the humanity and a question mark on social order.
39. Learned Trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction, however, while awarding the sentence has erred in awarding the sentence against accused Ajay Das (appellant No.2) for a period of 14 years for murder under Section 302 IPC and for kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC. Under Section 302 IPC punishment prescribed is as under: -
"Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."
Under Section 364-A IPC punishment prescribed is as under:-
"Shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine."57
How the punishment of 14 years rigorous imprisonment has been awarded as against death or imprisonment for life is astonishing? Same was also rightly pointed out by learned Advocate General. Once the accused has been held guilty for commission of the offences under Sections 302/364-A IPC only and only punishment can be either death or imprisonment for life. Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the whole life. Trial Court neither has power nor discretion to impose punishment less than what is prescribed.
40. In our considered view, accused have been rightly convicted. Accused Sobraj Sonar being dead no appeal on his behalf. Order of sentence is modified to the extent i.e. Ajay Das instead of 14 years rigorous imprisonment shall stand sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and also for imprisonment for life under Section 364-A IPC.
41. We make it clear that the appellants Suraj Gupta and Ajay Das stand convicted under Sections 302,364-A, 201 and 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC and shall stand sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302 IPC whereas, under Section 364-A IPC shall also stand sentenced to life imprisonment and also fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each. Under Section 201 IPC sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.
42. Judgment impugned dated 28.11.2014, where-under conviction has been recorded, for the stated reasons and circumstances and for the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court, is upheld whereas, order dated 10.12.2014 awarding sentence is also upheld with a modification of sentence vis-à-vis accused Ajay Das as referred to hereinabove.
43. With the aforesaid modification in sentence vis-à-vis accused Ajay Das and imposition of fine both the appeals are dismissed.
5844. Copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent to the learned Trial Court. Copy of this judgment be furnished free of cost to both the appellants No.1 and 2.
(H. S. Thangkhiew) (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
14.05.2019
"Lam AR-PS"
59