IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1809 OF 2012

MD. FIROZ ALAM

APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Praveen Swarup and Ms. Payal Swarup, the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant. The State of Jharkhand is

represented by Mr. Vishnu Sharma and Ms. Madhusmita Bora, the

learned counsel.

2.

This appeal arises out of an order dated 19.01.2010 in

Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2002 whereby the learned Judge of the

Jharkhand High Court while disposing of three criminal appeals

through the common order upheld the conviction of the appellant

under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). The

appellant who was also convicted under Sections 395 and 397 of the

IPC was however acquitted of those charges under the impugned

judgment of the High Court. However, the acquittal of the two co-

accused was ordered by the said common judgment.

3.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.11.1998 at

about 1:45 p.m., few of the accused intruded into the shop of

Tirupati Jewellers on the main road at Ranchi and brandishing

pistols, the accused looted ornaments and other articles from the

1

Digitally signed by

NITIN TALREJA

Date: 2023.03.21

17:00:51 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

shop at gunpoint. In course of the dacoity, one man in the shop

was injured and one other person who entered the shop at that point

of time was also injured. The accused hurled bombs and then fled

away with the looted ornaments.

4.

The trial under Sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC read with

Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was conducted by the trial court

and the learned Judge considered the material evidence as also the

evidence of the witnesses. The Court concluded that the prosecution

is successful in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt to

the effect that the three accused committed dacoity in the shop

premises of Tirupati Jewellers and in course of the said crime,

they also caused injuries to the owner of the shop. The looted

articles were recovered from the three places pointed out by the

accused and accordingly all three accused were found guilty under

the charges for which they were tried. Insofar as the present

accused is concerned, for the offence under Section 412 IPC, no

separate sentence was imposed as he was already sentenced for 10

years and 7 years respectively for his conviction under Sections

395 and 397 of the IPC.

5.

In the resultant criminal appeals filed by the three accused,

the High Court noted that

the conviction based on the

identification of the accused during the TIP cannot be sustained as

the TIP was not conducted in accordance with the legal procedure.

Accordingly, the conviction of all three appellants under Section

395 IPC as also under Section 397 of IPC read with Section 27 of

the Arms Act, 1959 was set aside and they were acquitted of the

2

conviction ordered by the learned trial Judge.

6.

Insofar as the conviction of the present appellant under

Section 412 of the IPC is concerned, the Court noted that the

ornaments looted from the shop were recovered on the basis of the

confessional statement of the appellant and those were proved by

the investigating officer in his evidence. The seizure and

identification of the looted articles were proved through the

evidence of the Magistrate. Considering these relevant materials,

the High Court opined that conviction under Section 412 of the IPC

must be sustained and since separate sentence was not ordered, the

appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6

years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default

sentence, for his conviction under Section 412 of the IPC.

7.

We have examined the material on record with the assistance of

the