ASHOKE SHARMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have assailed the judgement of conviction dated May 11, 2022 and the order of sentence dated May 13, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, 2ndCourt, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 1 (9) 16 arising out of Sessions Case No. 10 (8) 14.

(2.) By the impugned judgement of conviction, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants under Sec. 364 A/ 302/ 201/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec. 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Judge has sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine Rs.50,000.00 each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000.00 each and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six months. He has sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three months. Learned Trial Judge has awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Sec. 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month to the appellant No. 3. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, the prosecution failed to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He has referred to the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses. In particular, he has referred to the recovery of documentary evidences which the prosecution claimed are incriminating materials as against the appellants. He has contended that, the learned Trial Judge has misapplied the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in relation to the materials seized by the police. He has contended that, recovery of any article on the leading statement made by an accused in a criminal proceeding ipso facto does not mean that the accused was guilty of the offence charged. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the appellants has relied upon 2017 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases 160 (Raj Kumar @ Raju vs. State (NCT of Delhi)), 2020 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 747 (Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar vs. State of West Bengal), 2022 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases 92 (Bijender @ Mandar vs. State of Haryana).