SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 52

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHAKRABARTI, K. C. DAS GUPTA
MADHUSUDAN SEN GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 17  Of  1956
Decided On : MARCH 5, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
Ajay Basu, AJIT DUTTA, DHIREN DE

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention of the accused to commit dacoity along with others, regardless of the actual participation of others, suffices to establish the offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

Section 399 - Offence of preparation for dacoity - Indian Penal Code, Section 19(f) - Indian Arms Act - [Section 399] - [Offence of preparation for dacoity] - [Indian Penal Code, Section 19(f)] - [Indian Arms Act] - [Summary]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant and three others were tried for charges under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were found in a taxi with arms and implements, intending to commit dacoity. The defense claimed that the incriminating articles were planted by the police after the taxi was taken to the police station.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, despite the defense's claim of police planting the incriminating articles.

Issues: The key issue was whether the accused made preparations for dacoity and whether the incriminating articles were planted by the police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the intention of the accused to commit dacoity along with others, regardless of the actual participation of others, sufficed to establish the offence under Section 399. The court also emphasized that the accused's belief in the intention of others was sufficient to establish guilt.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction for the offences under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act.

DAS GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 411-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was tried along with three persons, Sudhir Roy alias Sudhin, Chittaranjan Das alias Chitta and Kartick Chandra Das, on a charge under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and on two other charges, both under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act -- one of these being in respect of possession without licence of one sten gun and the other in respect of possession without licence of twenty-two cartridges. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the four persons on both the charges under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act. In respect of the charge under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, the jury were divided in the proportion of seven to two and the majority verdict was that all the accused persons were guilty of that offence. The learned Judge agreed with the majority verdict in respect of the offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellant and the other accused persons under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. The learned Judge also convicted the appellant and the other three persons of the offence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of possession of the sten gun and also in respect of the possession of twenty-two cartridges without licence. He sentenced each of the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of the possession of the sten gun without licence. He passed no separate sentence for the offence under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of the possession of the cartridges. He further ordered that the two sentences would run concurrently.

( 2 ) OF the four convicted persons, only Madhusudan Sen Gupta has appealed. The prosecution case is that on the 30th March, 1955, six persons including Madhusudan Sen Gupta and the other three accused persons, who were tried with him boarded a taxi W B T 358 -- at the crossing of the Gariahata Road and Rashbehari Avenue and proceeded in that taxi towards Howrah side. In that taxi they carried with them one sten gun with magazine fully loaded with twenty-two cartridges, one bhojali, a hand-grenade, some torches, five more bombs and several other articles of gun. It is said that the sten gun and the cartridges had been packed up In cloth and paper, that the hand-grenade and the torches were Inside what is called a shoulder bag and the bhojali was also kept packed. The earthen pot which is said to have contained five bombs was also packed, the mouth of the pot being closed by paper, There was a fifth package containing some garments. The prosecution case is that the six persons had provided themselves with all these things with the intention of committing a dacoity somewhere near Howrah or further off and that they were proceeding in the taxi towards the place where they wanted to commit dacoity fully prepared for that purpose. Before, however, they could effect their purpose, the police stopped them. It is said that a police party had on receipt of previous information been waiting for the accused persons near the Junction of Gariahata Road and Rashbehari Avenue and as soon as the four accused persons and their two companions got into the taxi and the taxi left, the three police officers and some plain clothed constables followed the taxi in a private car. For a considerable distance the police party in their car kept behind the taxi in which the accused persons were travelling, but it is said that when the taxi reached the junction of Clive Ghat Road and Strand Road and was held up by traffic ahead and a tram car on the right side of the taxi, the private car in which the police were travelling shot ahead by the right of the tramway and reached the crossing of the Strand Bank Road and the Strand Road where two





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top