Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14) a politician who is otherwise unconnected with the family of the deceased.

Hence, I am of the opinion that evidence of P.W. 1 ought to be treated with some circumspection and it would be prudent to seek corroboration from other sources before one relies on her deposition to bring home the guilt against the appellants. In making an endeavour towards that end, I find that her evidence is substantially corroborated with regard to the genesis of the incident by both her children, that is, P.Ws.2 and 3. Their presence is also corroborated by their mother (P.W.1) in her deposition and both of them have deposed that the victim Jahidul was kidnapped from the room at night. Both P.W. 2 and 3 deposed that they had gone out with their mother to answer nature's call and upon returning they had seen Jahidul being kidnapped in the instant case. Hence, the genesis of the prosecution case with regard to kidnapping of Jahidul from the room at night as depicted by P.W.1 finds corroboration from the depositions of her children, that is, P.Ws.2 and 3. The prosecution case in this regard is well established.

Motive:-

Appellant Aspiar and Jane Alam were accused in the murder of one Asraf Molla and P.W. 9, grandmother of the victim, was a witness in that case. The victim was kidnapped and murdered to deter P.W. 9 from deposing in that case. Prosecution exhibited FIR and charge-sheet (Ext.19) of the case involving the murder of Asraf Molla to prove Aspiar and Jane Alam were cited as accused and P.W. 9 was cited as a witness in the said case. P.W. 4 (the father of the victim) and P.W. 9 deposed that they had been threatened so that they may not depose in that case. P.W. 1 stated Jane Alam put a gun on her chest and told her to call her husband failing which her son would be murdered. Hence, the motive of appellants Aspiar and Jane Alam to kidnap and murder the child to deter his relations from deposing in another murder case is well established.