Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prafulla Chandra Roy vs The State Of West Bengal on 30 July, 2021
Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
C.R.A. 155 of 2017
Prafulla Chandra Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Md. Sarwar Jahan, Adv.
Mr.Firoze Hassan, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.
Ms. Faria Hossain,
Mr.Saryati Datta
Heard on : 8.7.2021,23.7.2021
Judgment On : 30th July, 2021.
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
In the instant appeal the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 6th January, 2017 and 7th January, 2017
respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Dinhata, Cooch behar in Sessions Trial No. 13(01)/ 2015 arising
out of Sessions Case No. 110 of 2013 is under challenge at the
instance of the convict/appellant.
Bu passing the impugned judgment the appellant was
convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to
suffer simple imprisonment for three years for committing
offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case was initiated on the basis of a written
complaint submitted by one Rabindranath Sarkar stating, inter
alia that on 13th August, 2011 his minor daughter aged about 16
years at the relevant point of time left the house to attend her
tuition. But did not return home. On 16 th August, 2011 the
accused was caught red handed at Burdwan Railway Station with
the daughter of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the
minor daughter of the de facto complainant was eloped by the
accused and was kidnapped.
Police took up the case for investigation which culminated
in filing charge sheet against the accused under Section 363/366A
of the Indian Penal Code. Since the offence under Section 366A of
the Indian Penal Code is triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions , learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dinhata
committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge,
Cooch behar who in turn transferred the case to the trial Court
for disposal.
The accused duly appeared before the Court of trial charge
under Section 363 /366A of the IPC was framed against him. As
he pleaded not guilty, trial of the case commenced.
In order to establish the charge against the accused persons,
prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the
de facto complainant.
The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence held the
accused guilty for committing offence under Section 363 of the
Indian Penal Code , convicted him and sentenced him accordingly.
When the appeal was first taken up by this Court on 8 th July,
2021, a report was called for from the learned Sessions Judge,
Cooch behar to ascertain as to whether the appellant has served
out the entire sentence or not. The learned Sessions Judge has
submitted a report to this Court through the Registrar
Administration (L & OM) in charge stating , inter alia that the
appellant has already served out the entire sentence and was
released from the Correctional Home.
Though the appellant has already served out the entire
sentence, he can agitate the legality of the order of conviction in
the instant appeal and this Court being a Court of facts of law is
under obligation to consider independently the evidence on record
to satisfy as to whether the appellant was rightly convicted or
not.
During the trial, the de facto complainant deposed as P.W. 1.
In his evidence he corroborated the statement made by him in
the FIR. It is found from his evidence that on 13 th August, 2011
his daughter went to take tuition at Khotamara at about 10 a.m.
thereafter she did not return to her house. The de facto
complainant conducted search for his daughter but did not find
him. On 15th August, 2011, he received a telephonic information
from Burdwan police station that the appellant was apprehended
along with his minor daughter at Burdwan Railway Station. He
further deposed that he went to Burdwan on 16 th August, 2011
and saw his daughter. The de facto complainant alleged that her
daughter was eloped and kidnapped by the accused /appellant.
The evidence of the de facto complainant was corroborated
by P.W.2 ,Subhal Chandra Sen.
P.W.7 is the victim girl. It is ascertained from her evidence
that on 13th August, 2011 when she was returning home from
private tuition, she was intercepted by three young men
including the accused. One of the pillion riders got down from a
motor cycle which was being driven by the accused and two
other persons shut her mouth by their hands and forcibly
compelled her to ride on the said motor cycle then she was
directly taken to Siliguri and from Siliguri the accused took her
to Burdwan. On the next day at about 5.30 p.m. they got down
from the train at Burdwan Railway Station she requested the
accused to send her home but the accused denied. The accused
was seen making mobile call to different persons. Then the
witness sought for help of a person at Burdwan Railway Station
and informed him about the entire incident . He took him to
GRPS at Burdwan Railway Station the accused was caught red
handed. Her father came to Burdwan. She also proved her
statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
I have considered the entire evidence on record as well as
the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge .
I do not find any reason to take a different view from what
has been taken by the learned trial Judge in the instant case.
In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is
dismissed on contest, however, without costs.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for
information along with the lower Court record.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
