JHANTU GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Barasat, North 24 -Parganas in Sessions \Case No. 19(5) of 1999/Sessions Trial No. 2(8) of 2003, convicting the appellants under section 426/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days more for commission of offence punishable under section 426/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the appellants to suffer imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000/ - each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days for commission of offence under section 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is that one Lakshmi Kanta Ghosh lodged a First Information Report with Barasat Police Station on 4.5.1989 alleging that the appellants tresspassed into the house of the de facto complainant, looted a large number of articles, outraged modesty of the female inmates of the house and also cause mischief by setting the house on fire. It was further alleged that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons. Pursuant to such written complaint, Barasat Police Station Case No. 354 dated 4.5.1989 under sections 147/148/149/448/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the instant case under sections 148/149/448/354/427/436/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to court of sessions, North 24 -Parganas, Barasat and transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. II, Barasat, North 24 -Parganas for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under section 448/427/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. They examined one witness and exhibited documents. Two court witnesses were also examined. In conclusion of the trial, the trial judge by the judgement and order dated 20.7.2006 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under sections 426/34 and 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment of three months with a fine of Rs.1,000/ - each in default to undergo further imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under section 426/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/ - each in default to suffer imprisonment for fifteen days more for the offence punishable under section 448/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention that the son of the de facto complainant (who was examined as C.W. 1) has preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid judgment and order on the ground of acquittal of the appellants from the graver charge under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code being C. R. R. No. 2673 of 2006. The said revision petition is, accordingly, heard along with the present appeal and is being disposed of by a common judgement and order. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that his clients had been falsely implicated due to rivalry. He submits that the allegation of mischief was not proved by seizure of articles from the place of occurrence. He further submits that apart from the oral version of the prosecution witnesses, who are mostly partisan, there is no contemporaneous record to corroborate the prosecution version of criminal trespass or mischief. He further submits with regard to the appellant no.22 that he was a cashier of State Bank of India, Barasat Branch and on the date of occurrence was at the branch office from 10 -00 A. M. to 5 -00 P.M. but has been falsely implicated in the instant case and D. W. 1 was examined to probabilise his absence from the place of occurrence.