The court upheld the conviction for dacoity based on corroborative eyewitness accounts and proper conduct of the Test Identification Parade.

1. By consent of the parties, both the appeals are taken up for hearing without preparation of the Paper books. Lower court records have been received.

2. The appeals are directed against judgement and order dated 8th September, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 - Parganas convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under S.394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more.

3. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is as follows:

4. One Anita Dasgupta (PW2) lodged a written complaint with the Officer - in - charge, Garfa Police Station on 9th August, 2012 alleging that two unknown miscreants came in a motorcycle and snatched a gold chain from her neck while she was returning home from morning walk. In course of investigation, the appellants were arrested and on the basis of leading statement of appellant - Manoj Ghosh, the gold chain was recovered. The appellants were identified by the de - facto complainant and other witnesses namely, Sujit Pal (PW4), Anup Kumar Hore (PW7) and Rabi Mazumder (PW10) in the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW6. In conclusion of investigation, charge - sheet was filed in the instant case under S.392/397 of the Indian Penal Code . The case beinga sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 17th Court, Alipore, South 24 - Parganas for trial and disposal. Charge was framed under S.392/397 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the judgement and order dated 8th September, 2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

5. Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Identification of the appellants by PW2 is doubtful as she admitted that she had seen the appellants in jail prior to Test Identification Parade. Test Identification Parade was conducted by PW6 without taking necessary safeguards as the cut mark on the nose of the appellant - Rajib Biswas was not covered and due caution was not taken although the height of the two appellants were different. He also submitted that identification by PW4, 7 & 10 suffers from various improbabilities and contradictions and ought not to be relied upon at all. With regard to the recovery of the gold chain, he submitted that PW2 was unable to identify the mark on the chain in Court and therefore, the seized gold chain cannot be said to be stolen property. He submitted that the examination of the appellants under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conducted in an improper manner and questions in the nature of cross - examination were put to the said appellants. He accordingly, prayed for acquittal of the appellants.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ayan Basu, learned advocate appearing for the State, submitted that evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly, PW2, 3, 4, 7 & 10 clearly established the dacoity on the fateful day and the said witnesses namely, PW2, 4, 7 & 10 have not only identified the appellants in court but also during the Test Identification Parade. The appellants did not raise any objection in the course of Test Identification Parade