JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated December 21, 2009 and order of sentence dated June 19, 2015 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in connection with Sessions Trial No. 101(12) of 2008 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 11 (07) of 2008.

2. In course of investigation on the basis of source information, police arrested some of the miscreants on February 25, 2008 and on the basis of the statement made by them some arms and ammunition were recovered. On April 21, 2008 the appellant Ganpat Ram along with other accused persons were arrested by the police and stolen properties and house-breaking instruments were recovered from their possession as well. During their custody the accused persons were interrogated and pursuant to their statements, the police further recovered other stolen properties, and house-breaking instruments. Appellant Shisu Pal was arrested on April 21, 2008 from Badaun, U.P. and the stolen Samsung Mobile Phone belonging to the de-facto complainant was recovered from his possession. The accused persons were put on T.I. Parade and they were identified by the witnesses.

3. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal, in a nutshell, is that the de-facto complainant Bimal Das, the P.W. 1 along with his son Bidyut Das (P.W. 5), the daughter Barsha Das (P.W. 4) and his wife Chandana Das, used to live together in the third floor of the premises No. 7, Lenin Sarani, Kanchrapara, within the jurisdiction of Bijpur Police Station. He was a jeweler by profession, and his shop room and workshop were situated in the ground floor of the said premises itself. One Abhijit Paul (P.W. 2) and Niranjan Paul @ Gosai (P.W. 3) were the employees of de-facto complainant and they were present in the workshop at the relevant time. On the fateful night at about 3 hours the de-facto complainant woke up from his sleep hearing the barking of dogs. Being attracted by some noises, when he opened the door of his room he found 5/7 young persons in bermuda pants trying to break open the collapsible gate of his bedroom. His wife Chandana Das also woke up with his son Bidyut Das (P.W. 5).

4. Seeing the dacoits, the de-facto complainant asked his wife to go to the balcony and seek help from the neighbours. Being so asked, when his wife, Chandana Das went to balcony looking for help from the neighbours, the miscreants who were already hiding there, threw her down from the verandah when she identified one of them and called “Surya Tui”. Thereafter, the miscreants entered into the bedroom on the point of firearms, took the de-facto complainant and his son to the workshop at the ground floor. They forced the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who were inside the workshop to open the door and on the point of firearms keeping all of them silent, looted away huge amount of ornaments and cash from the iron chest. They also snatched the Mobile Phone from the de-facto complainant and fled away from the spot.

5. The incident was reported to the police. Police arrived at the spot and after a written complaint over the incident, lodged by the de-facto complainant, P.W. 1 Bimal Das, started investigation of the case under sections 395/396/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code which ultimately ended in charge sheet against the appellant and others.

6. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the case diary, charges under sections 395/396/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant and 11 others and they were put on trial for the aforesaid offences.

7. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary and material evidence adduced at the trial.

8. The de facto complainant himself deposed as PW1. He stated that he used to reside at no. 7 Lenin Sarani, Workshop Road, Kachrapara. He had a jewellery shop under the name and style ‘B. Das & Son