JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 and 27.04.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. 02(07)/2016 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 35 of the Arms Act and the appellant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.5 under Section 25(i)(a)27 of the Arms Act and sentencing the appellant Nos.1 to 6 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 35 of the Arms Act, sentencing appellant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing appellant No.5 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for year one and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, all the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that in the night of 20.1.2016 at around 2.00 A.M., dacoity took place in two jewellery shops viz., Krishna Jewellers, owned by P.W.1, Pradip Nayek and Shibani Jewellers, owned by P.W.2, Soumitra Maity situated at Dimari Bazar. At around 2.45 A.M. one Pradip Mondal (P.W. 25), an adjacent shop owner informed P.W.9 over phone about the incident. He reached the shop room at 3.00 A.M. and was informed that 12-15 persons had committed dacoity in his shop. He was also informed that some of the miscreants were Bengalis while others were non-Bengalis and were wearing dhoti and shirt. They had turbans on their head and were armed with fire arms and bhojali. Local caterers and florists saw the said miscreants at the place of occurrence. The miscreants had assaulted a local florists viz., Krishna Pada Pattanayak, P.W.3 with lathi. The miscreants had also assaulted Sibaprasad Jana, P.W.5 and Ganesh Maji, P.W.22. Local caterers, P.W.7, Partha Pratim Chakraborty, P.W.8, Krishnendu Sau, P.W.21, Gobinda Pal and others had seen the miscreants. The miscreants took away gold and silver ornaments valued lakhs of rupees and cash and had fired two rounds of bullets in the locality. On the first information report lodged by P.W.1, Tamluk P.S. Case No.64 of 2016 dated 20.1.2016 under Sections 395/397/398/412 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered for investigation. Investigation was conducted by P.W.31 and P.W.35. In the course of investigation, P.W.35 collected call dump data from P.W.19 and with the assistance of P.W.12, Ajay Kumar Mahato, a co-tenant identified the hideout of the appellants i.e. the residential premises of P.W.13. On 28.1.2016, P.W.35 arrested the appellants from the aforesaid residence and stolen booty viz., gold and silver ornaments, cash etc. and fire arms were recovered. Subsequently, incriminating articles like sabol, gupti etc. for committing dacoity were also recovered from the said residence. In the course of test identification parade, appellant Nos.3 and 5 were identified by P.W.s 7, 8 and 11. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur for trial and disposal.

(3.) In the course of trial, charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 395/397 IPC and Section 35 of the Arms Act against the appellants, under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the appellant no.5. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined 35 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. They, however, did not examine any witness to probabilise such defence.