ROBIN BAPARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After their conviction under S 395 I.P.C. and the imposition of the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, a further rigorous imprisonment of three months each, in Sessions Trial No. 3 of January, 1983 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 11th Court, Alipore Robin Bapari and Sambhu Biswas have jointly filed the present appeal from jail Even at the time of the hearing of the appeal they did not or could not engage any Advocate to argue their appeal. We do not find any Advocate willing to argue the appeal on their behalf here also. Mrs. Anima Chakraborty, learned Advocate undertakes to argue the appeal of the appellants as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Chaitanya Chandra Mukherji, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the State-Respondent. The prosecution case stood as follows.

(2.) On 22-1-82 at about midday about seven youngmen all armed with revolvers and other deadly weapons raided the Allahabad Bank, Paikpara Branch at Talla Park Avenue. One of the miscreants forcibly entered into the room of the Manager and compelled him to open the cash enclosure, located inside the strong room. Thereafter, all the miscreants compelled the few bank employees over there to go inside the bank enclosure at the point of revolver. The miscreants then decamped with Rs. 76,432/- from the bank enclosure after putting the bank employees under lock and key. Thereafter, on receipt of a telephonic information police came to the spot and took up investigation of the case. The learned Trial court examined as many as 25 witnesses including the police officers and after hearing both sides acquitted the accused persons under S. 397 I.P.C. The accused persons, however, were convicted of the offence under S. 395 I.P.C. sentenced as indicated before.

(3.) Mr. Chaitanya Chandra Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the State contends that several bank employees to wit P.W. 3, Ganapati Nath Bhatia, P.W. 5, Surendra Narayan Misra, P.W. 6, Anil Kumar Das, P.W. 7, Chittaranjan Bose, P.W. 8, Jiban Kumar Sana, P.W. 9 Biswanath Seal, P.W. 14 Babul Kumar Dutta deposed about the commission of the dacoity by a group of more than seven young miscreants armed with deadly weapons such as revolvers etc. He further contends that there is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to show that they had the slightest animosity against the accused persons. We have perused the evidence of these eye-witnesses and to our mind it appears that they deposed about the occurrence which occurred in their presence and there is no reason to disbelieve them. Thus the fact of dacoity in the bank premises as aforesaid is proved and established as found by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Court it appears was specially impressed by the evidence of P.W. 14, Bablu Dutta from whose hands his wrist watch was robbed by the miscreants. No less impressive was the evidence of P.W. 3. the then Manager of the bank who gave a detailed account as to how the miscreants entered within the enclosure and looted the cash money from there. The evidence adduced by P.W. 7, Chittaranjan Bose is very much eloquent about the accused Sambhu Biswas. His evidence is that the miscreants "took all of us from the Manager's room and thrust us in the cash room by force and put lock and key on the collapsible gate installed there." It transpires further from his evidence that it was Sambhu who was standing in front of the collapsible gate. It was Sambhu, again, who actually locked them inside the enclosure. No wonder that the witness identified the accused persons, specially, Sambhu, correctly, not only before the Magistrate (P.W. 17) holding the T. I. Parade but also before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The date of occurrence we have already seen was 22-1-82. Sambhu, the accused was thereafter arrested and was put up for T.I. Parade by Sri D.C.De (P.W. 17) on 24-3-82. In the T. I. parade he was identified by P.Ws. Ganapati Nath Bhatia, Biswanath Seal Jiban Kumar Saha, Chittaranjan Bose, Anil Kumar Das and some others. So Sambhu's participation in the dacoity and identification thereafter in the T. I. Parade, cannot be questioned, and Mrs Chakraborty, the learned Amicus Curiae does not seriously challenge this part of the judgment under appeal. We have, therefore, no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence in so far as Sambhu is concerned.