MOHAN CHETRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on 31-7-87 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Session Case No. 33 of 1986 (Session Trial No. 2(6) of 1986). By his impugned order the learned judge convicted the two accused appellants Mohan Chetri and Bazley Rahaman under S. 394 read with S. 397 I.P.C. and also under S. 412, I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for conviction under S. 394 read with S. 397, I.P.C. and also to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each for conviction under S. 412, I.P.C. with the direction that both the sentences imposed on each shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that in the evening of the 5/03/1984 at about 7/ 7.30 p.m. while PW 1 Ratanlal Lakhotia, his father Motilal Lakhotia and his brother-in-law PW 4 Ratanlal Somani were present in the Godighar of PW-1, three miscreants entered therein being armed with weapon and caused PW 1 under threat to open the iron-chest and almirah and took away about Rs. 1,500/- and also snatched away the wrist watches of PW 1 and PW 4 and thereafter the three miscreants went inside the house and took away the ornaments etc. for the women-folk of the house and then fled away with the booty after confining all the inmates of the house including PW-1 and PW-4 inside a room and closing the door of the room from outside. This broad aspect of the prosecution case has received support from the evidence of PW 1 Ratanlal Lakhotia and PW 4 Ratanlal Somani. The further evidence of PW 1 is that when the miscreants were engaged in the acts of collecting booty inside the house, he managed to contact his uncle PW 2 Rukum Chand Lakhotia over phone from his bedroom situated inside the house as he could not contact police in spite of efforts and reported to him (PW 2) about the crime which was being committed in his house at that time by the miscreants with a request to report the matter to the police immediately. It is also the evidence of PW 1 that all the electrical lights were glowing during the occurrence and he was able to see the miscreants in that light. From his evidence it also appears that they had a telephone in their Godighar which the miscreants damaged at the very beginning of the operation. We also got it from his evidence that there was an extension of that telephone to his bed-room inside the house and he rang up PW 2 from that telephone which escaped the notice of the miscreants. PW 3 Smt. Santi Somani who is the sister of PW 1 and wife of PW 4 also corroborates the prosecution version of commission of robbery in their house by three miscreants. She also describes the ornaments and articles taken away by the miscreants. That there was a robbery in their house and that the miscreants took away ornaments and articles from their house by committing robbery have been amply established by the direct evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4 who are the inmates of the house. PW 2 Hukum Chand Lakhotia testifiesthat on receipt of telephonic information from PW 1 he reported the matter to the P.S. over phone and then came to the house of PW 1 and saw that police had already arrived there.

(3.) PW 1 has tobacco business and he has also a work house on the opposite side of their Godighar where his tobacco workers work. According to the evidence of PW 1 he also noticed that 2/3 more miscreants were standing at the work house. If his evidence on this point is belived then the total number of miscreants comes to 5 or more including the three who had entered inside the Godighar and had gone further inside the house and carried on the actual snatching away of cash, articles and ornaments as stated by PW 1 and the other inmates of the house. In that event of course the offence would amount to dacoity. The F. I. R. which was made in that very evening by PW 1 however does not disclose anything about the presence of any miscreants at the work house. The F.I.R. rather speaks of only three miscreants. PW 5 Mukter Miah was a tobacco worker of PW 1 at the relevant time. He of course spaks about presence of 2/3 miscreants in front of their work house and also speaks about the entry of three other miscreants in the Godighar. He was, however, declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 6 Khokan Miah is another tobacco worker under PW 1. The only person who has identified in Court the two appellants as the miscreants is PW 1 and he also identified them at the T.I. parade. It is the prosecution case and PW 1 also says in evidence that one of the miscreants assaulted him and his brother-in-law (PW 4) with bamboo lathi. PW 4 also corroborates PW 1 on the point.