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

2025 Supreme(Cal) 669

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.
Ram Chandra Das And Anr. – Petitioner 
Versus 
The State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 501 of 2005, CRA 101 OF 2005
Decided On : 10-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Faria Hossain, Ld. A.P.P., Mr. Anand Keshari, Adv.

The mere assembly of individuals with weapons does not suffice to establish intent or preparation for a dacoity under IPC Sections 399 and 402; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 399 and 402 - Conviction under charges of dacoity - Prosecution failed to establish requisite intent and assembly necessary for charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC; mere presence of accused with weapons not enough for conviction - Court acquitted accused based on inconsistent evidence and lack of mens rea. (Paras 4, 11, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The complaint led to investigatory arrests of the accused found with weapons at a lonely location, with allegations of intent to commit dacoity. The evidence revealed inconsistencies regarding the assembly of accused and the description of seized weapons.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was found unsupported due to lack of credible evidence establishing intent and preparation for a dacoity. The assembly of individuals without sufficient evidence of intent does not meet the criteria established under IPC Sections 399 and 402.

Issues: The court addressed whether the prosecution adequately proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the necessary intent for the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal law dictates that an accused is presumed innocent until guilt is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt; mere assembly with weapons does not suffice to prove intent to commit a dacoity. Evidence must be clear and cogent for conviction.

Result: Criminal appeals allowed; the conviction of the Trial Court is set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against conviction. (Para 4 , 5)
3. observations on reasonable doubt. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. discrepancies in evidence. (Para 9 , 10)
5. criteria for sections 399/402 ipc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25th January, 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court-2, Kalyani, Nadia whereby the order of conviction is passed under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and three years for the offence punishable under Section 402 of the Indian Penal Code.

Brief resume of the case

2. The genesis of this criminal case embedded on the strength of the complaint lodged by the S.I., Kalyani P.S. on 23rd January, 2004 before the O.C., Kalyani P.S. when he produced five accused persons, namely, (1) Ram Chandra Das (2) Raju Das @ Saha @ Susanta Saha @ Chaina (3) Paltu Sarkar (4) Abhijit Saha and (5) Bappa Das along with some deadly weapons. It was alleged that the complainant along with some other police persons on receiving information that some miscreants have assembled at Bijoynagar, a lonely place near Railway line (up & down main line) with deadly weapons to commit dacoity in a closed factory under Kalyani Industrial Estate ,rushed there at around 22.45 hrs. and reached near R.T.C. and left their vehicle and reached Bijoynagar on walking. They found some young men sitting in an isolated place and gossiping in a low voice and they rounded them and disclosed their identity and asked them to surrender before them then those said young men disclosed their identity as described hereinabove. After that, the complainant searched their persons and on search, recovered one iron chopper from the possession of Ram Chandra Das, one iron chopper from the possession of Raju Das @ Saha, one iron made Sidkati from the possession of Partha Sarkar, one iron rod about 3 ½” from the possession of Abhijit Saha and one iron rod about 3” from the possession of Bappa Das. Those persons failed to give any satisfactory explanation regarding possession of such weapons and also failed to give any appropriate reply regarding their presence on the spot at that point of time. It was further mentioned in the written complaint that on interrogation, those persons confessed their guilt and stated that they assembled there with weapons to commit dacoity in the locality and other places.

3. On the basis of such complaint, Kalyani P.S. Case No.19 dated 23rd January, 2004 under Sections 399 /402 I.P.C. started and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The case was transferred on commitment before the learned District Judge, Nadia, subsequently, transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract, Court-2, Kalyani, Nadia for trial. The learned Court framed the charges under and 402 against all the accused persons and the content of the charge was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial commenced.

Submissions

4. The learned Advocate representing the appellant initially submitted that the learned Court passed the order of conviction without considering the discrepancies in the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses. It is his specific contention that the complaint was lodged on 23rd January, 2004 by the S.I., Kalyani P.S. and he seized offending weapons from each of the accused persons which were five in numbers. No independent witness was there who was present since it was dead at night. More so, no evidence can be found to establish any conspiracy to be by the accused persons.

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