The crucial role of corroborative evidence, including expert opinion, in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 2015/10th March, 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darjeeling in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2013 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 489B & 489C of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 489B IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Section 489C IPC; both the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 9th May, 2012 one T.T. Bhutia, Inspector of Police, D.I.B. Darjeeling (PW4) received information that a person was moving suspiciously at Central Plaza Shopping Complex, P.S. Sadar and trying to purchase articles with forged Indian currency notes. Accordingly, he along with other police officers went to the spot and on identification by source intercepted the appellant. On search he recovered a large number of currency notes suspected to be fake of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- denominations totalling Rs.11,000/- along with other articles. On interrogation, appellant stated that he had brought the fake Indian currency notes from his village Nahit under P.S. Hariharampur, Dist: Dakshin Dinajpur to use them as genuine in Darjeeling town area. The de-facto complainant consulted the Bank Manager of State Bank of India, Darjeeling who opined that the currency notes were fake. Accordingly, he lodged FIR being Sadar Police Station Case No.51 of 2012 dated 09.05.2012 under Sections 489B/489C IPC against the appellant. In course of investigation, co-accused namely, Abdul Hakim @ Dalim was also arrested. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused namely, Abdul Hakim @ Dalim. Charge was framed under Sections 489B/ 489C IPC against the appellant and under Section 489B IPC against the co-accused namely, Abdul Hakim @ Dalim. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 9th March, 2015/10th March, 2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. However, by the selfsame judgment co-accused namely, Abdul Hakim @ Dalim was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

3. Mr. Swagata Datta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that evidence of the official witnesses suffer from various contradictions and/or inconsistencies. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pradipta Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the evidence of the official witnesses is supported by the evidence of an independent witness (PW2). Exhibit-7 (report of expert) proves the seized currency notes to be fake. Hence, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt.

5. Pw4 is the de-facto complainant in the instant case and the leader of the raiding party. He deposed on 9th May, 2012 he received information that a person was trying to purchase articles at Central Plaza Market Complex with fake Indian currency notes. He along with S.I. C. N. Bhutia (PW1) and others went to the spot and on identification by source they intercepted the appellant and recovered four numbers of currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination and 14 nos. of Rs.500/- denomination notes which appeared to be fake. He proved the seizure list. On interrogation the appellant stated he obtained the fake currency notes from one Dinesh Nahi. The notes were sent to the Manager, State Bank of India, Darjeeling Branch who opined