Conspiracy Hatched with Precision, Roles Assigned Like a Mission: Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment In Kidnapping of Proprietor of Khadim Shoe Company

Each of the accused played their specific role right from hatching the conspiracy to its execution and even thereafter – In a significant verdict Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi, affirmed the conviction of seven accused in the sensational kidnapping-for-ransom case of Partho Roy Burman, proprietor of Khadim Shoe Company. The Court upheld the life sentences imposed by the trial court under Sections 364A, 342, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, confirming that the prosecution had successfully established a well-knit conspiracy and its execution.
However, the Bench granted relief to one appellant, Akhtar @ Akhtar Hossain, holding that no evidence linked him directly to the crime, and ordered his release forthwith.
“We find the evidence of PW31, PW32 and PW33 absolutely consistent as to the hatching of the conspiracy and its execution” — Calcutta High Court
The case had its origins on July 25, 2001, when Partho Roy Burman, while on his way from the Khadim factory at Kasba to his godown at Topsia, was intercepted at C.N. Roy Road, Kolkata. Armed assailants dragged him out of his vehicle, fired a gunshot causing injuries to his hands, and abducted him in a Maruti car. His family soon received a chilling ransom call from Dubai demanding ₹20 crore. In a desperate attempt to secure his release, the family ultimately paid ₹3.75 crore, which was subsequently laundered to Dubai through hawala channels.
The initial investigation was carried out by the Tiljala Police Station but was later taken over by the CID, West Bengal, due to the gravity of the offence. The accused remained absconding for years, resulting in a split trial.
The Conspiracy — “Two houses were arranged and used for the execution of the kidnapping plot”
The Court found that the conspiracy was meticulously planned. One flat at 21/B Gorachand Lane, Kolkata, was taken on rent by Mehmood Hassan, while another house at Village Pakuria was purchased by Mizanur Rahman through mediators. The Court noted that these two houses were “frequented by many of the appellants including Mizanur Rahman, Akram, Aslam, Naim, Dilsad, Mahmud Hassan, Zamir Hassan, and others.”
The preparation, according to the Court, was not casual but systematic. PW31 and PW32, who worked as cooks in the Gorachand Lane flat, testified that around 25 conspirators would regularly meet and openly discuss the “abduction of the Khadim karta for ransom”. On July 23, 2001, a crucial meeting was held, where, as narrated by PW31, “duties were distributed amongst the accused — some to kidnap, some to guard the victim, others to arrange vehicles and arms.”
PW32 corroborated this by stating, “It was discussed in the meeting that after abduction, Partho Roy Burman would be kept in Bhoot Bunglow guarded by Muzammel, Mizanur, Sekender, Moulana Mansur, Moulana Jalal. Naim and Dilsad were given the duty of collecting people. Aslam, Shahbaz and Marup were directed by Mirza Bhai to abduct Khadim Karta.”
“Complete Chain of Circumstances Leading Only to Guilt” — Court on Evidence against Appellants
The Court remarked that the testimony of PW31, PW32, and PW33 was “absolutely consistent so far as hatching out of conspiracy and manner of its execution is concerned.” PW33, who was introduced to the gang by his childhood friend Asif Reza Khan, recounted how the victim, bleeding from gunshot injuries, was brought to the Bhoot Bunglow. “Asif Reza Khan identified the said person as Partho Roy Burman,” said PW33, further stating that money was handed to accused Shahbaz to procure medicines, and that the victim’s voice was recorded to assure his family of his captivity.
Additional corroboration came from PW10, a motor mechanic who identified Noor Mohammed as the person who repaired the damaged Maruti used in the abduction, and from PW40, a local witness who testified to seeing 3-4 persons forcibly dragging a man into the Maruti and fleeing the scene.
The Bench observed, “The cumulative effect of the aforementioned evidence gives a clear interwoven chain of circumstances that leaves no doubt that the appellants were involved in hatching up a conspiracy of abducting Partho Roy Burman for ransom.”
On Delay in Test Identification Parade: “Infirmities Do Not Dent The Prosecution Case”
While the defense vociferously attacked the prosecution for delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and relied on Supreme Court precedents like Budhsen, Ankush Maruti Shinde, and Wasif Haider, the High Court dismissed this objection.
“It is true there might be a delay in conducting the test identification parade, but the identification of the accused has been testified by the learned Magistrate conducting such parade. Moreover, no case was made out by the appellants that the accused put on test identification parade were shown to the witnesses beforehand,” held the Court.
Relying on Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reaffirmed that “the substantive evidence is the evidence in the court on oath” and that “photo identification and TIP are only aides in the investigation and do not form substantive evidence.”

On Electronic Evidence: “Substantial Compliance of Section 65B Achieved”
On the contentious issue of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellants argued that the trial court erred in relying on intercepted phone calls, audio cassettes, and email printouts.
The Court clarified, “The intercepted calls were recorded under proper authorization, and technical personnel who assisted were examined as witnesses. The emails were retrieved in the presence of the accused who themselves gave credentials. The evidence, thus, achieves substantial compliance with Section 65B.”
Interestingly, the Court further noted that even without the electronic evidence, “the evidence on record, leaving aside the electronic evidence, seems to prove the only theory of guilt of such appellants to the exclusion of all others.”
Release of One Accused: “No Evidence Links Akhtar Hossain to the Crime”
While the conspiracy was firmly established against seven appellants, the Court found that accused Akhtar Hossain could not be linked to the crime. The Court said, “There is absolutely no description of arms alleged to be supplied by this appellant or that of the arms used in the incident. If that be so, there appears no evidence on record to link up the appellant Akhtar with the incident.”
Accordingly, Akhtar Hossain was ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
The judgment concluded firmly, stating, “The prosecution has been able to prove that there was a conspiracy for abduction of Partha Roy Burman for ransom... The appellants have also not been able to create a reasonable doubt as to their involvement.”
The appeals of the seven convicted appellants were dismissed, and the trial court’s judgment was confirmed in full, except regarding the acquitted accused.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2025