BIPUL DAS vs Ranjit Das

Page 1 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 ASLK030028802023 APPENDIX-12 IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR Present: Smti.

Kingkini Borah, AJS Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam (Date of Judgment: 19-08-2025) (G.R.

Case No.

582/2023)(PRC 1553/2023) North Lakhimpur P.S.

232/2023 COMPLAINANT STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY Smti.

Ajanta Sarmah, Addl.

P.P.

ACCUSED 1.

Sri Ranjit Das Son of Sri Babul Das Vill:- Tamulghuli Gaon P.S: Gormur District : Majuli, Assam (A1) REPRESENTED BY Mr.

Lakhyajit Deuri, Advocate Page 2 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 APPENDIX-13 Date of offence 15.06.2023 Date of FIR 16.06.2023 Date of Charge Sheet 30.06.2023 Date of Framing of Charges 14.09.2023 Date of commencement of evidence 25.10.2023 Date on which judgment is reserved Nil Date of Judgment 19.08.2025 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any Page 3 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 Accused Details Rank of the Accus ed Name of Accused Date of Arrest Date Release on Bail Offence s charge d with Whether Acquitted or convicted Sentence Imposed Period of Detention Undergon e during Trial for purpose of Sec.

428 Cr.P.C.

A1 Sri Ranjit Das 18.06 .2023 03.08.

2023 Sec.

365 IPC Acquitted Nil 46 days Page 4 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 J U D G M E N T 1.

The brief matrix of the prosecution case is that Sri Bipul Das on 16.06.2023had lodged an ejahar before the Officer In-charge of North Lakhimpur Police Station, alleging inter alia that on 15.06.2023 at about 7:00 PM, the accused person kidnapped his minor daughter who is aged about 14 years was reading in Class- VIII, from his house.

Hence, this case.

2.

The Officer-in-charge of North Lakhimpur Police Station on receipt of the ejahar registered a case vide North Lakhimpur PS Case No.

232/2023under section 365 of IPC.

65 of IPC.

The investigating officer, after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet under section 365of IPC against the accused person, Sri Ranjit Das to stand trial in the Court.

3.

On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence under section365of IPC was taken as per section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Necessary copies were furnished to the accused persons as per section 207 CrPC after his appearance before the Court.

After considering the materials on record and hearing both the sides, the charge was framed against the accused u/s 365 IPC and the particulars of offence u/s 365 IPC is read over and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 4.

The points which are required to be determined for a just decision of this case are as follows: Page 5 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 (a) Whether the accused person, on 15.06.2023 at about 7:00 OM in the evening time at village Romomichuk under North Lakhimpur Police Station had kidnapped (or abducted) one Smti Panchami Das, student of Class VIII, aged about 14 years i.e. the minor daughter of the informant Sri Bipul Das with the intent to cause Smti Panchami Das to be secretly and wrongfully confined, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 365 of IPC?

5.

In this case, eight witnesses were examined, including the informant as PW-1, the victim as PW-3 and the I.O as PW-8.

6.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused person under section 313 of CrPC was recorded.

The defence plea is of total denial and the defence side declined to adduce evidence in defence.

7.

Both the sides advanced their respective arguments in this case.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: 8.

In this case, PW-1 Sri Bipul Das, lodged the ejahar on 16.06.2023 against the accused Ranjit Das stating that on 15.06.2023 at about 7:00 PM, while he and his wife were not at home his daughter i.e. ghter i.e.

PW-3 who is aged about 14 years was kidnapped by the accused person and after searching for her everywhere they came to know that the accused had kidnapped his daughter.

The police case was registered u/s 365 IPC and charge sheet was submitted under the same section.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses including the I.O.

PW-1 Bipul Das was the informant in this case and he stated in his evidence in chief Page 6 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 that about 5 months back on the day of the incident at about 7:00 PM, when he returned to his house after marketing his wife informed him that their daughter Panchami i.e.

PW-3 was missing.

PW-1 started searching for her but he came to know that the accused Ranjit Das had taken away his daughter.

So the next day, PW-1 came to the North Lakhimpur Police Station and lodged the ejahar.

After three days, he got custody of his daughter from the court, police had recovered his daughter from a village where she was staying with the accused in a house.

9.

In his cross-examination PW-1 stated that he had not written the ejahar himself and he did not know the contents of the ejahar.

He denied that the accused often visited his house as he was his son Deep Das‟s friend.

He also denied the suggestion that his daughter i.e.

PW-3 used to address the accused as „Dada‟ because he was is son‟s friend.

PW-1 again stated that he did not know if his daughter had a friend called Manab Basumatary i.e.

PW-5 and she had asked the accused person to take her to the house of Manab Basumatary.

PW-1 also stated that he knew that his daughter had stayed in the house of Manab Basumatary for two days and on suspicion he gave the case against the accused thinking that his daughter had eloped with him.

10.

The said Manab Basumatary was examined as PW-5 and in his examination in chief he stated that he knew the informant of the case.

He also knew the victim Panchami Das as well as the accused. e accused.

According to PW-5 the accused Ranjit Das, the brother of the victim and PW-5 worked together as electricians.

About one Page 7 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 year back, one day, the victim visited his house alone and told them that she came to one of her friend‟s house, which was near their house and so she also paid them a visit.

PW-5 then goes on to say that as it was late in the evening, so his wife asked her to spend the night in their house.

Then on the next day, during afternoon, police came to their house and took her away with them.

PW-5 also added that police came and asked him whether this was the house of Manab Basumatary and he replied in the positive.

The police searched for the girl and finding her in their house took her along with them.

PW-6 Smti Jamuna Basumatary who is the mother of PW-5 and PW-7 Sri Dhaniram Basumatary who is the father of PW-5 have corroborated this statement of PW5.

11.

On the other hand, PW-2 who is the mother of victim deposed that on 15.06.2023, she had sent her daughter to a nearby shop to bring some household items but after some times, when she did not return from the shop she went in search of her.

At that time, PW-2 heard that the accused person had eloped her daughter.

On that day, her daughter did not come back to their house.

So the next day, they went to North Lakhimpur Police Station and informed the matter to the police.

On 17.06.2017 at about 7:00 PM, the police personnel of North Lakhimpur Police Station informed them over phone that they had recovered her daughter along with the accused from Bodhakora.

After three days, PW-2 brought her daughter from the Thana.

Page 8 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 12.

In her cross-examination PW-2 denied that the accused and her son Deep Das are friends or that her son had another friend named Manab Basumatary. asumatary.

She also denied that her daughter had asked her son to take her to the house of Manab Basumatary as guest but her son refused as he had some other work and asked her daughter to go with the accused person.

She also denied the suggestion that her daughter left the house in a Tomtom the accused one of her friends was waiting for her in the house of Manab Basumatary i.e.

PW-5.

13.

PW-3 Miss Panchami Das is the victim.

In her evidence she stated that on 15.06.2023 at about 7:30 PM, her mother sent her to a nearby shop.

At that time, she met the accused person on way and since she knew him she spoke to him and he questioned her whether she had come to the shop.

After that PW-3 did not know how or why but she landed up with the accused on his bike and on the next day, she found herself in some unknown place and when she asked the address of the place the accused told her that she was at Bodhakora.

In the meantime, her parents recovered her from Bodhakora along with the accused person and brought her to the Thana.

Police then informed her parents and they came to the Thana and from there she was brought to the court and her statement was recorded.

PW-3 also added that at present she was unable to attend her school as the accused person and his family members threatened to assault her if she attend school and therefore her parents are scared to send her to school.

On being Page 9 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 question by the court as to whether she had informed the police about the matter she stated that this being not been done.

14.

In her cross-examination PW-3 denied that her brother Deep Das is a friend of the accused person and as such the accused used to frequently visit their house.

She also denied that she knew any person named Manab Basumatary.

She also denied that her brother Deep Das, the accused Ranjit Das and Manab Basumatary were good friends. d friends.

She also denied that Manab Basumatary visited their house frequently as he was her brother‟s friend.

Again, she denied that on the day of incident she was adamant to go to the house of Manab Basumatary/PW5 as one of her friends was waiting his house.

She denied that her brother Deep Das asked her to go along with accused Ranjit Das to the house of Manab Basumatary/PW5.

She again denied that since she was unable to go to the house of the Manab Basumatary/PW5 late in the evening, therefore she left her house and went to Manab Basumatary‟s house on her own.

She denied that since she was missing from her house and the accused person was known to her family members and because her brother had told her to go along with him to the house of Manab Basumatary/PW5, so out of suspicion, her parents gave a case against the accused person.

PW-3 denied that she had stated before the Magistrate, that she had love affair with the accused or that she had fled on her own will.

However, on perusal of the 164 Cr.PC statement it is seen that PW-3 had categorically stated that she had eloped with accused Ranjit Das and gone to Bodhanora where she stayed in the house of Manab Page 10 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 Basumatary/PW5 for two days along with the accused Ranjit Das.

She also stated that she had love affairs with accused Ranjit Das.

In her 164 Cr.PC statement PW-3 stated that police brought them from Bodhakora and she had willingly eloped with the accused person.

15.

Section 365 IPC deals with kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person.

Kidnapping is defined in section 359 IPC and consists of two kinds:- kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

In this case, the nature of kidnapping is kidnapping from lawful guardianship which is defined in section 361 IPC and reads as follows:- Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any per or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor of person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation:- The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

16.

In this case, from the statement of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 it is seen that the victim was about 14 years of age on the date of occurrence.

Furthermore, in the 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim also her age is recorded as 15 years.

17.

PW-8 SI (P) Dhurba Saikia, the I.O in this case stated that he seized the school certificate of the victim vide seizure list which is exhibited as P-3/PW4.

Although, the certificate which has been Page 11 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 produced is of the school certificate of Gorhoga Balika Madhya Engraji Vidyalaya.

But from that certificate it can be seen that on the time of the incident the victim was aged about 14/15 years.

Although, in his written argument the defence has taken plea regarding the age of the victim being not proved and referring to Section 94(2) of the J.J Act, but it can be stated that section 94(2) of the J.J Act governs the age determination procedure with respect to child in conflict with law but no such statutory procedure is there in case of minor victim.

During cross-examination the defence has not cross examined any of the witnesses including the I.O regarding the age of the victim.

Moreover, from the seizure list it is seen that one school certificate proving the age of the victim had been seized in the case.

Therefore, if we consider the victim to be a minor then her consent is immaterial in this case.

On the other hand, non-production of the original documents in this case heavily hits the prosecution case as it is seen that the document to prove the age was a Photostat copy.

18. copy.

18.

The principle that when two views are possible on the evidence- one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence- the view favorable to the accused should be adopted is well established in Indian Criminal Law.

This plea is crucial in ensuring that the accused receives of fair trial and is protected under the presumption of innocence.

This principle was upheld in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Nandu Viswakarma(2009).

The same has been reiterated by the Page 12 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court in Lalramthanga Vs State of Mizoram- Gauhati (2022).

19.

In this case, a photocopy of school certificate is found in the record.

Generally, a Photostat of school certificate is consider secondary evidence and may admissible in court in specific circumstances, but it is not as strong as the original document.

To be admitted, the party presenting Photostat must prove why the original is unavailable example- lost, destroyed or in the possession of the other party.

Furthermore, the authenticity of the Photostat copy must be established which means that it needs to be shown that it accurately reflects the original.

The Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurucharan Kaur Chakal Vs Nirvair Singh and others decided on 6th November, 2013 stated that thus, a Photostat copy of a document can be produced the evidence only when it is alleged and proved that the original was existence and is lost, destroyed or in possession of the opposite party who failed to produce it or in any other circumstance mentioned in Section 65 of the Act.

These foundational facts, however, are to be proved by leading cogent evidence.

As regards the questions whether Photostat copy of a document comes within the meaning definition of that „secondary evidence‟ as contained in section 63 of the Act, there cannot be absolute answer because every Photostat copy may not be accurate. accurate.

For this purpose the probative value of Photostat copy has to be proved individually.

20.

In this case, the prosecution did not make any attempt to prove the Photostat copy of the school certificate to be admitted as Page 13 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 secondary evidence by bringing in the circumstance required by the law for such evidence to be admitted in Court.

21.

Thus, from appreciating the evidence laid down in this case, it is seen that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused person and no incriminating materials, whatsoever was found against him.

22.

Hence, in conclusion, I find that the offence, u/s 365 IPC has not been established against the accused person, Sri Ranjit Das beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to the benefit of doubt in this case and he is found not guilty and as such he is acquitted from the said offences and is set at liberty.

Bail bond of the accused person is extended for further 6(six) months from today.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the District Magistrate.

The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- (Smti.

Kingkini Borah) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur Dictated & corrected by me- Sd/- (Smti.

Kingkini Borah) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur Transcribed & typed by- Rinki Roy, Stenographer Contd. …………..

Appendix Page 14 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 APPENDIX – 14 LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES A.

Prosecution: RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE WITNESSES, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS) PW1 Sri Bipul Das Informant PW2 Smti Sabitri Das Other witness PW3 Miss Panchami Das Victim PW4 Sri Rupen Ch.

Das Other witness PW5 Sri ManabBasumatary Other witness PW6 Smti JamunaBasumatary Other witness PW7 Sri DhaniramBasumatary Other witness PW8 SI (P) Dhurba Saikia Police witness B. witness B.

Defence Witnesses, if any: RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE WITNESSES, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS) DW1 Nil Nil DW2 Nil Nil C.

Court Witnesses, if any: RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE (EYE WITNESSES, POLICE WITNESS, EXPERT WITNESS, MEDICAL WITNESS, PANCH WITNESS, OTHER WITNESS) Page 15 of 15 GR Case No.

582/2023 PRC 1553/2023 CW1 Nil Nil LIST OF PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE/ COURT EXHIBITS A.

Prosecution: Sr.

No.

Exhibit Number Description 1 Exhibit P-1/PW1 FIR 2 Exhibit P-2/PW3 Statement of PW3 3 Exhibit P-3/PW4 Seizure list 4 Exhibit P-4/PW8 Sketch map 5 Exhibit P-5/PW8 Charge-sheet B.

Defence: Sr.

Exhibit Number Description 1 Exhibit D-1/DW-1 Nil 2 Exhibit D-2/DW-2 Nil C.

Court Exhibits: Sr.

Exhibit Number Description 1 Exhibit C-1/CW-1 Nil 2 Exhibit C-2/CW-2 Nil D.

Material Objects: Sr.

Exhibit Number Description 1 MO1 Nil 2 MO2 Nil Sd/- (Smti.

Kingkini Borah) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS