Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J.
Ujjal Rajbanshi @ Ujjwal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA No. 391 of 2012
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Indian Penal Code - Robbery - Sections 395, 412, 411, 392 - The judgment discusses the presence and involvement of the accused persons in the offense, the identification of the accused, the recovery of stolen articles, and the delay in recovery. The court found that the conviction under Section 396 in respect of Appellant No. 2 and Section 396/412 in respect of the other Appellants are not tenable. The court also concluded that the Appellant No. 2 is guilty of the offense under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Appellant No. 1 and 3 under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code is modified as conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code only. The sentences of Appellant No. 1 & 3 are reduced to rigorous imprisonment of three years only with a fine, and the sentence of Appellant No. 2 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six years with a fine.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a robbery where four persons entered a residence, robbed the occupants, and fled. The accused persons were convicted under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction under Section 396 in respect of Appellant No. 2 and Section 396/412 in respect of the other Appellants are not tenable. The court also concluded that the Appellant No. 2 is guilty of the offense under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Appellant No. 1 and 3 under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code is modified as conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code only. The sentences of Appellant No. 1 & 3 are reduced to rigorous imprisonment of three years only with a fine, and the sentence of Appellant No. 2 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six years with a fine.
Issues: The issues included the presence and involvement of the accused persons in the offense, the identification of the accused, the recovery of stolen articles, and the delay in recovery.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction under Section 396 in respect of Appellant No. 2 and Section 396/412 in respect of the other Appellants are not tenable. The court also concluded that the Appellant No. 2 is guilty of the offense under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of Appellant No. 1 and 3 under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code is modified as conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code only. The sentences of Appellant No. 1 & 3 are reduced to rigorous imprisonment of three years only with a fine, and the sentence of Appellant No. 2 is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six years with a fine.
JUDGMENT :
Sugato Majumdar, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 27/04/2012 and Order of sentence dated 30/04/2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC 1, Ranaghat, Nadia, whereby the accused persons were convicted under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The genesis of the prosecution case is the written complaint dated 18/01/2007 made by the de-facto complainant, Netai Mondal, a resident of Nrishinghapur Madhya Colony, Santipur Police Station. In the written complaint he stated that on 17/18.01.2007 at about 02:15 a.m. four persons entered into his home, woken up his son, Gopal Mondal from sleep and then entered into the room of the de-facto complainant with his son at gun-point. They snatched away Rs.40,000/-, 6 bhories of gold in the form of one necklace, one bangle, ear ring, ring of gold plated conch and mobile handset and then fled away. The matter was informed to the police authority by his brother Sunil Mondal and within a short period police reached the spot. The village people chased the culprits but they fled away. After sometimes the de-facto complaint heard sound of bomb explosion. Out of the four persons the de-facto complainant gave description of two of them whom he would be able to identify; the other two culprits covered their face with clothes. One of the culprits sustained bomb injury and was admitted into hospital.
3. The written complaint was registered as Santipur Police Station case No. 14 of 2007 dated 18/01/2007 under Section 395 of IPC read with Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. Investigation was entrusted with the Sub-Inspector Biplab Ganguly. In course of investigation the said Investigating Officer arrested the accused persons and recovered articles, arranged for test identification parade, also arranged for test identification parade of articles recovered and did other incidental and necessary acts in connection with the investigation. Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. Since the case was exclusively triable the Court of Sessions matter was committed to the Sessions Judge by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Trial Court.
4. Charges were framed under Section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. Charges were read over and explained to each of the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, trial began.
5. In course of trial thirty witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution; different documents were adduced in evidence and were marked as exhibits; different articles were also adduced in evidence and were marked as material exhibits.
6. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. Defense of the accused persons, as appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as from reply given in course of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is false implication.
7. The Trial Court convicted all the present Appellants along with the other accused persons under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons except the Appellant No. 2 Sadhan Mondal were also convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they were acquitted of the charges under Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. In terms of the impugned order of sentence, the Appellants and the other convicts were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. All the convicts except Sadhan Das were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the
The absence of a Test Identification Parade, along with inadequacies in prosecution evidence, poses a reasonable doubt on the conviction under Section 395 IPC.
(1) Legal representatives of deceased appellant have right to seek acquittal and continue appeal against conviction of deceased appellant so as to remove stigma of conviction of their deceased family....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, doubts exaggerated testimony, and highlights the significance of recovery evidence and incriminating circumstances in establishing guilt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the conviction if the overall evidence is credible.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
