Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 774
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
INDIRA BANERJEE & SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, JJ.
Mujibar Ansary – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal and Ors. – Respondents
Cr. R. A. No. 406 of 2004
Decided On : 17/12/2014
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence and consistency in witness statements to sustain a conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Section 412 - Conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity. The court analyzed the evidence presented and the statements of witnesses to determine the guilt of the accused under this section.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against a judgment and order convicting the accused under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code for dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of a dacoity. The prosecution case involved a dacoity in the house of Late Baneswar Mahato, resulting in his death and the theft of various items.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not establish the accused's guilt under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, as the key witness's statement contradicted the evidence presented by the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction under Section 412 was set aside, and the accused was set free.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of dishonestly receiving stolen property in the commission of a dacoity under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence and the contradiction in the witness statements, leading to the conclusion that the conviction under Section 412 could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside, resulting in the accused being set free.
Indira Banerjee, J.
This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 14th June, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Raghunathpur, District 'Purulia in Sessions Case No.1 of 2001, Sessions Trial No.2 (3) of 2003, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and further to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-. The accused appellant has, however, been acquitted of the charge under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, on the night of 12-13-07-1997 between 1.30 hours and 1.40 hours, 10 to 12 unknown dacoits committed dacoity in the house of Late Baneswar Mahato and caused his death by hurling bombs. The unknown dacoits allegedly entered the house through the main road and ransacked all the rooms, after terrorizing the other inmates in the house and decamped with cash of Rs.500/-, utensils, wearing clothes, one Atlas Bi-cycle, one Anglo Swiss Wrist watch, one Eveready torch etc.
3. As observed above, so far as this appellant is concerned, the charge against him under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code of dacoity was not established. The learned Sessions Court held the accused appellant guilty of charge under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code provides as follows.
'412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity. 'Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.'
4. The Learned Sessions Court held the accused appellant guilty of offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of ten years on the basis of the evidence of PW 15, the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the case, who stated that statements of the accused appellant under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had led to the recovery of a Suitcase and a tin box containing articles and belongings of the deceased.
5. The prosecution examined about 17 witnesses. The Prosecution Witness Nos.1 to 8 in a nutshell stated that there had been a dacoity at the house of Baneswar Mahato and that Baneswar Mahato had been killed by bombs hurled by the dacoits. Many of these witnesses had only heard of the incident and some of them went to the residence of Baneswar Mahato after hearing of the incident. None of the witnesses could throw any light on who had committed the dacoity.
6. The 9th Prosecution Witnesses Smt. Juli Roy deposed that she knew Baneswar Mahato. There was a hue and cry due to theft in his house. Hearing such hue and cry she rushed to his house with her father, but there was bomb charge, so she took shelter at the house of Manohar. This witness said that she saw Baneswar Mahato being hit by dacoits. According to her, the dacoits were not from the same village and she could not identify them. She could not say how the deceased was killed. The 10th Prosecution Witness was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of Baneswar Mahato.
7. The 11th Prosecution Witness Guta Mahato, daughter-in-law of the deceased, Baneswar Mahato deposed that her father-in-law had been killed by dacoits who had entered their house and looted all their belongings. She deposed that she could not see the dacoits. She further stated that she had not been taken to any jail compound for identification of the accused. In cross-examination, she even denied having been interrogated by the Investigatin
