Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This witness was cross-examined and he had identified accused Krishna Madhab Chakma and Sahadev @ Hurhaba Chakma in the dock. He, however, clarified that he did not have any talk with the miscreants over phone.

5. PW2-Anil Dev is the younger brother of the deceased who had deposed that the deceased was settled in London and used to visit his native town every two to three years. His last visit before the incident was in the year 2000 during which, he had joined a political party and contested the Assembly Election from Katlicherra Constituency but had lost. Thereafter, he returned from London in the year 2002 and started bamboo business and acquired 6 nos. of Bamboo Mahals at Mizoram in which, he had incurred losses. Thereafter, he again worked in two Bamboo Mahals and on Page No.# 7/49 this occasion, his businesses were running well. On 17.03.2004, he saw the deceased leaving the house accompanied by Munia Lohar and Manager, Jalal Uddin and they were leaving for Bhairavi. On that evening, he got the information from the police to attend the police station and on going there, Sattar Ali, a clerk had given him the news of the abduction of the deceased. The vehicle was found abandoned and a search was made. On the next day, Jalal Uddin informed that there was a demand of Rs.50 lakhs. The amount was negotiated and reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs which was to be given in two installments. The first installment of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was paid by Sudip and the abductors had assured that after payment of the balance amount, the deceased would be released. However, the balance amount could not be paid due to certain communication gap. On 18.03.2004, he had lodged the FIR which was proved as Ext.-

18. PW14 is Md. Sarif Ali Laskar, who had worked with the deceased for two months and used to keep accounts of the bamboo business. He deposed that though the CBI had recorded his statement, he did not remember the same. At that stage, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. He had denied of stating before the CBI that the deceased had told him that accused Budul Mian is a man of low grade. It may be mentioned that while recording the deposition, the learned Trial Court had also indicated that such a statement was also made under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. He had also denied that any quarrel had taken place between Budul Mian and the deceased regarding bamboo business.

19. PW15 is one Akbar Hussain, who had worked under Budul Mian. He had deposed that on the instruction of the deceased, his Munib had stopped the bamboo to take royalty and had explained that if the bamboos are from Mizoram, royalty is to be paid. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. He had, however, denied a suggestion that there was a quarrel between Budul Mian and the deceased.

20. PW16 is Dr. Subrata Dey, who was posted as Medical & Health Officer at Katlicherra and is a witness to the recovery memorandum under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has described the journey to the place where two different skeletons and other materials were discovered. He had also verified the packets and Page No.# 13/49 seals which were shown to him. In his cross-examination, he had denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of preparation of the recovery memo.

29. PW25 is Lalkhamuna Pachowa, who was serving as a Forest Officer and the CBI had made certain queries to him regarding tenders of bamboo. He had stated that the deceased was settled with bamboo Mahal. It may be mentioned that his evidence was deferred due to non-availability of documents. In any case, the said witness does not appear to be of much relevance.

30. PW26 is Dr. TD Dogra, who was posted as Head of Forensic Science, AIIMS and had done the autopsy on the skeletal remains. He had received an inventory consisting of 12 exhibits. He had also taken the blood sample of Ms. Shibani Deb and had deposed that he had received a letter from the CBI to collect the Blood sample of Ms. Sipra Deb. He had deposed that the details of the Pacemaker of the deceased dated 06.09.2005 provided by the CBI matched with the number of the Pacemaker submitted.