Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 234 (CAL)

Jayanta Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2001-04-25

ARUNAVA BARUA, NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY

body2001
JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows:–– Barua, J. : This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.07.97 and order dated 19.07.97 passed by Sri P. B. Ghosh, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Alipore, South 24 Pgs. in S.T.No. 7 (1) 97 / S.C. No. 11 (1) 97 (State v. Jayanta Mondal and two others) whereby the three accused persons, namely Hobi Molla, Bapi Lasker and Jayanta Mondal were all found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. and convicted thereunder and each of the three convicts was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to R.I. for one year under Section 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is this. 3. In the early hours of the morning between 3 A.M. and 3-30 A.M. on the 21st of August, 1996, the three accused persons, namely, Jayanta Mondal, Bapi Lasker and Hobi Molla alias Hobibur Molla along with 3/4 other miscreants armed with deadly weapons, such as revolver, knife etc. committed dacoity at the house of Nuruddin Taj (P.W.3) at his Garden Reach House at Calcutta. The accused Hobi Molla, alias Hobibur Molla, was alleged to have dishonestly received and retained part of the booty, namely, one calculator-cum-alarm clock belonging to said Nuruddin Taj, obtained in the course of the said dacoity. 4. All the three accused persons were charged with having committed the offence under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. and accused Hobi Molla was also charged with having committed the offence under Section 412 I. P. C. 5. At the trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge the defence was of complete denial of the prosecution story and their only stance is, they have been falsely implicated in this case. 6. Now, while arguing the case before us the learned Defence Counsel did not dwell upon the merits of the case as strenuously as he did on the quantum of sentence in particular. His short submission is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and came to a finding which was erroneous both on facts and law and that the convicts and sentence imposed upon the three accused persons under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. could not be sustained and should be set aside. His short submission is that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and came to a finding which was erroneous both on facts and law and that the convicts and sentence imposed upon the three accused persons under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. could not be sustained and should be set aside. The learned Defence Counsel was vehemently critical about the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years handed down to each of the three convicts. According to him, the accused convicts were all poor people driven to deprivation and desperation and not hardened criminals and considering the fact that they have been already behind the bars for quite a few years now, the sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment which was unduly harsh and unwarranted, should be sliced down on sympathetic consideration. 7. Now, we have carefully gone through the evidence on record and the, judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned Trial Judge on an appreciation of the evidence on record found the three accused, Jayanta Mondal, Bapi Lasker and Hobi Molla guilty of the offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.PC. but had absolved the accused Hobi Molla of the offence under Section 412 I.P.C. He, therefore, convicted the three accused, Jayanta Mondal, Bapi Lasker and Hobi Molla and each of them was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to R.I. for one year under Section 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C. In coming to the conclusion he did, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge gave due weight to the respective submissions of the learned P.P. and the Ld. Defence Counsel point by point and refuted the arguments of the Defence Counsel and found enough substance in the prosecution case buttressed by the evidence on record, both oral and documentary. There were a good number of actual eye witnesses to the commission of armed dacoity by the three accused persons and it was for convincing reasons that he found the eye witnesses's account to be perfectly credible and trustworthy. The accused persons, he found, were also identified in the T.I. parade and in the Court. No material infirmity is manifest in the process of evaluation of the testimony of the eye witnesses by the learned Trial Court. The accused persons, he found, were also identified in the T.I. parade and in the Court. No material infirmity is manifest in the process of evaluation of the testimony of the eye witnesses by the learned Trial Court. The probability-factor in the assessment of the oral evidence was also duly considered by the learned Trial Judge which had also added authenticity to the prosecution story. Some apparent discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were sought to be highlighted by the learned Defence Counsel but those were ignored by the Ld. Trial Judge for right reasons. After all, it is well-settled that minor discrepancies are bound to occur here and there in the evidence. The point is, the totality of the direct oral testimony of several eye witnesses with regard to the commission of dacoity by the three accused persons at the house of the P.W.3, Nuruddin Taj, is never tainted and the truth of the prosecution story is amply substantiated by sufficient evidence on record. The fact remains that the three accused convicts along with others more than five of them any way entered into the house of P.W.3, Nuruddin Taj on 21.8.96 and threatening the inmates of the house with dire consequences forcibly took away cash, gold-ornaments and other articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. No particular reason whatsoever is attributed to the principal prosecution witnesses for their falsely implicating the accused persons. The learned Trial Judge, we find, had rightly found the three accused persons guilty of the offences punishable under Section 395/397 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted them thereunder. 8. About the sentence imposed upon the three convicts, we hardly find any ground to interfere. We find from the judgment of the learned Trial Judge that each of the three convicts was asked by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to make submission on the quantum of punishment to be imposed on each of them and each of the accused submitted that he was innocent and that no punishment should be imposed on him and the learned Defence Lawyer left the entire ,matter to the discretion of the Court and we find from the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge that the discretion was well-exercised. The learned Trial Judge, we find, had borne in mind that the offence committed by the three convicts was very serious – an offence which strikes at the very foundation of the society, the order of which depends upon prevention and suppression of this type of crime. The learned Trial Judge was also not forgetful of the age of the convicts who were youngmen but dangerously desperate. Having had due regard to all these aspects, the learned Trial Judge duly refrained from passing the sentence of life imprisonment upon each of the convicts but proposed to pass sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each i.d. to R.I. for one year each under Section 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C. upon each of the accused/convicts which he did. We are inclined to appreciate the views of the learned Trial Judge and sustain his findings. It is all-too-well-known how these days the spurt of violence and armed dacoities are reaching dreadful heights. Which is why some deterrent sentencing is urgently necessitated to keep crimes and criminals at bay to the extent possible. In our considered opinion, the matter admits of no further leniency and no reduction of sentence is called for. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Chowdhury, J.: I agree.