Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 656 (CAL)

Samar Roy @ Kallu v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-07-07

GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, KISHORE KUMAR PRASAD

body2008
JUDGMENT GIRISH CHANDRA, J. 1. These four appeals arose out of a common judgment dated 28th November, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, in Sessions Trial No. 2(9) of 1998 arising out of Sessions Case No. 36(5)/98 convicting the appellants under sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, and an order dated 30th November, 2000, by which all the four convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate punishment under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was, however, inflicted. 2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:- On 6th September, 1997, at about 10 hours in the morning, a dacoity was committed in the Mominpur Branch of the' State Bank of India. An armed guard was there in the bank. He was overpowered. His arm was snatched. One of the officials of the said branch of the State Bank of India was wounded. The Manager and the cashier of the branch were forced to open the iron chest and to make over the cash lying thereat amounting to a sum of Rs. 4,08,413/-. The miscreants thereafter escaped from the place of occurrence by a Maruti van bearing registration no. WB-02E/4979. During investigation five persons were arrested. All of them were charged under sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. One of them died during the pendency of the trial and four of them were convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. 3. On the basis of the statements made by each of the accused persons recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, parts of the booty were recovered by the police. There is unmistakable evidence to show that the money recovered on the basis of information supplied by the accused persons was, in fact, the money looted from the said branch of the State Bank of India on 6th September, 1997. The notes of the currency bundles contained the signature of the bank officials. The case was, thus most satisfactorily established against each of the accused persons and on that basis the conviction was recorded by the learned Trial Court. 4. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ram, in C.R.A. No. 90 of 2001, Mr. The case was, thus most satisfactorily established against each of the accused persons and on that basis the conviction was recorded by the learned Trial Court. 4. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ram, in C.R.A. No. 90 of 2001, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Samar Roy @ Kallu, in C.R.A. No. 37 of 2001, Mr. A. Khan, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Abdul Hai Gayen, in C.R.A. No. 227 of 2001, and Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, Monoj Singh, in C.R.A. No. 116 of 2001, did not advance any submission whatsoever on the merit of any of these four appeals. No attempt was made by them to assail the conviction. The only submission made, on behalf of each of the appellants in the four several appeals, was with regard to the quantum of sentence. 5. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel, appearing for Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ram, submitted that his client is in custody for more than ten years. He added that the object of punishment is to correct the wrongdoer. According to him, the object has been achieved and the appellant, Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ram, should now be set at liberty. 6. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel, appearing for Samar Roy @ Kallu, adopted the submission of Mr. Basu. 7. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel, appearing for Abdul Hai Gayen adopted the submission of Mr. Basu and submitted in addition that there was extenuating circumstance in his case stemming from the fact that his client, Abdul Hai Gayen fully co-operated with the prosecution. He made a clean breast of his guilt in Court. As a matter of fact, he was the only one concerned with this crime who, in Court during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that he was repentent for the act committed by him, and he would not repeat the same in future. Mr. Khan added that the learned Trial Court should have taken this fact into consideration. He submitted that considering the fact that the appellant, Abdul Hai Gayen, is repentent, the object of punishment is more than achieved, and there is no reason why the agony of his client should be prolonged any further. 8. Ms. Mr. Khan added that the learned Trial Court should have taken this fact into consideration. He submitted that considering the fact that the appellant, Abdul Hai Gayen, is repentent, the object of punishment is more than achieved, and there is no reason why the agony of his client should be prolonged any further. 8. Ms. Gomes, learned Counsel, appearing for Monoj Singh, adopted the submission of Mr. Basu. 9. Mr. Goswami, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Mallick, learned Counsel, submitted that the appellants are hard core criminals. The appellants are also involved in other cases of dacoity. He submitted that considering the nature of the crime, this Court should not interfere with the sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr. Goswami that the fact that the appellants are involved in other criminal cases is or can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the quantum of punishment in this case. If other matters are pending or the appellants are involved in other criminal offences, they shall be dealt with in accordance with law in those matters and the past record of the criminals may be relevant in those cases. Therefore, that fact, in our view, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the quantum of punishment. Mr. Basu, no doubt, is correct in his submission that the object of punishment is to correct the wrongdoer. But that is not the only object sought to be achieved. There are other objectives. First and foremost is prevention of recurrence of this type of offence. No less important is the object of creating an atmosphere of deterrence by punishing the criminals. A Criminal Court sets an example which works as a deterrence to the likeminded people who may be contemplating to commit a crime. Correction of the criminals is undoubtedly an object sought to be achieved by a welfare State. The Court acting in the capacity of Parens Patriae is concerned about the well being not only of its law abiding citizens but also of the citizens, who have for some reason or the other, deviated from the path of righteousness and fallen into criminal activities. 11. The Court acting in the capacity of Parens Patriae is concerned about the well being not only of its law abiding citizens but also of the citizens, who have for some reason or the other, deviated from the path of righteousness and fallen into criminal activities. 11. It is true that Abdul Hai Gayen confessed his guilt during his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also true that he stated before the learned Trial Court that he was repentent. This only goes to show that he learnt the lesson that crime does not pay. 12. Considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that actual imprisonment of twelve years would serve the purpose of justice. 13. The appellants are accordingly sentenced to actual imprisonment of twelve years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default they shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months each in supersession of the punishment inflicted by the Trial Court. 14. All the four appeals, therefore, partly succeed. The appellants, Samar Roy @ Kallu, Monoj Singh, Dinesh Das @ Dinesh Ram and Abdul Hai Gayen, should be set at liberty after they have undergone actual imprisonment of twelve years and have also paid the fine as indicated above. In default of payment of fine consequence as indicated above shall follow. 15. Considering that no one appeared, on behalf of the appellant, Monoj Singh, in C.R.A. No. 116 of 2001, we had requested Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned Counsel, to represent the appellant, Monoj Singh, and she has accordingly assisted us in disposing of the appeal being C.R.A. No. 116 of 2001. The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to regularise her appointment. 16. The Criminal Section of this Court is directed to send down a copy of this judgment and the Lower Court Records to the concerned learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. 17. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Counsel, for the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities. I agree. Appeals partly allowed.