JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Paraganas in Sessions Trial No. 05 (01) 05 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for both the offences in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months for each of the offences with a direction that both the sentences run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 26.9.2003 Surajit Ganguly came to his maternal uncle's house at 56 Iswar Ganguly Street, Kolkata-700 026 and on 29.9.2003 at noon while he was gossiping with his maternal aunt Rama Banerjee in a room in that house and another aunt viz., Aruna Banerjee and his mother Mollika Ganguly were sleeping, he heard ringing of the door bell; Rama Banerjee opened the door of the first floor; after some time he heard that she was calling for him and when he came out of his room and came to the door of the first floor, he found that a person was standing in the said door with a revolver pressing the mouth of Rama Banerjee and another person was standing with a chopper and the third person was standing near the staircase; the person with a chopper came towards him and demanded Rs. 50,000/- and the person who was holding Rama Banerjee pushed her forcibly on the floor and assaulted her causing bleeding injury to her. Thereafter, they were taken to the room forcefully where his mother and 'Mami' were sleeping; the telephone line was disconnected and they were threatened not to raise alarm; when his mother Mollika Ganguly tried to rescue them, the person with the chopper assaulted her on the hand and left cheek causing bleeding injuries on her person; thereafter, they were forcibly locked inside the room and an aluminium box was opened and monies were stolen therefrom; the miscreants also took away one wrist watch and demanded keys of the almirahs and started ransacking the almirahs for valuable articles; thereafter they left the place after threatening the inmates that they should arrange for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within three days as they would come back to take such money; subsequently Surajit Ganguly found that a sum of Rs. 8,500/- had been removed from the aluminium box; he lodged a written complaint at the local police station resulting in registration of Kalighat Police Station Case No. 171 dated 29.9.2003 under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3. In the course of investigation, the appellant and one Kesto Naskar were arrested. The appellant was put on T.I. Parade and in conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused Kesto Naskar. The case being a sessions triable one, was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Alipore, South 24-Paraganas for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and co-accused Kesto Naskar. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial Kesto Naskar absconded, while the appellant faced the trial. 4. During trial, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court by judgment and order dated 30.7.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are contradictory to one another. Identification of the appellant in court as well as during T.I. Parade is not beyond doubt. P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that she had been shown a picture of the appellant at the police station. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was the assailant of the victims in the instant case. Hence, the appellant prayed for acquittal in the instant case. 6. On the other hand, Mrs. Faria Hossain, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the victims are convincing and corroborative of each other. P.W.1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have identified the appellant during T.I. Parade as well as in Court. P.W.5 also identified the appellant during trial. Injuries on the victims have been proved by producing medical documents. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. P.W.1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have identified the appellant during T.I. Parade as well as in Court. P.W.5 also identified the appellant during trial. Injuries on the victims have been proved by producing medical documents. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. The material witnesses in the instant case are P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. 8. P.W.1 is the de facto complainant in the instant case. He deposed that he was at his maternal uncle's home on the fateful day i.e. on 29.9.2003. The house is a two storied building. On 29.9.2003 at noon, he was gossiping with his maternal aunt, Rama Banerjee. At that time, his mother Mollika Ganguly and another maternal aunt Aruna Banerjee were sleeping. Around 3.20 P.M., they heard the door bell ring and Rama Banerjee went to the entrance door in the first floor to open the door. Thereafter, he heard Rama Banerjee calling for him. He went to the entrance door and found that three persons were standing there. One person aimed a revolver at his aunt. While another was standing with a chopper near her and the third one was standing at the entrance door. On seeing them, he got frightened. The person with a chopper demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him. The miscreants threatened that if they failed to pay the amount, they would be killed. The person armed with chopper assaulted him twice on the left hand causing bleeding injuries on his hand. Thereafter, the person armed with revolver dragged his aunt Rama Banerjee to a room. The person armed with chopper also dragged him to that room. His mother Mollika and another aunt Aruna woke up. The person armed with chopper cut the telephone line. They were confined in a room. They also assaulted his mother on the left cheek and left hand causing grievous bleeding injuries on her person. On being threatened, Aruna Banerjee unlocked the aluminium box which was kept on the wooden table. The accused persons took away Rs. 8,500/- from the box. They also took away a wrist watch. The accused persons compelled them to open two almirahs in the room. They ransacked the almirahs for valuable articles. Thereafter, they threatened that they would come again after three days and that the witnesses must arrange for Rs. 50,000/-, otherwise they would kill them. Thereafter, the miscreants left the premises. They also took away a wrist watch. The accused persons compelled them to open two almirahs in the room. They ransacked the almirahs for valuable articles. Thereafter, they threatened that they would come again after three days and that the witnesses must arrange for Rs. 50,000/-, otherwise they would kill them. Thereafter, the miscreants left the premises. Coming to the ground floor, he found one pair of rubber 'chappal' on the staircase marked 'Barsat'. He also found a bunch of keys lying in the staircase. He went to the Kalighat Police Station where his statement was recorded. He put his signature thereon. He proved the written complaint, Ext. 1. Police came to the place of occurrence and seized the foot wear. He was medically treated at S. S. K.M. Hospital. He put his signature on the medical report, Ext. 3/1. He identified the rubber 'chappal' material Ext. I. On 11.2.2004, he went to the Presidency Jail for identification of the accused person in T.I. Parade. He identified the appellant as the person who was carrying revolver both in T.I. Parade as well as in the Court. On 6.11.2003, he had again gone to the Presidency Jail for T.I. Parade of the co-accused. He identified the latter as one who had assaulted him and his mother with a chopper. He stated that he could identify the co-accused, if he was present in Court. 9. In cross-examination, he, however, admitted that the police had shown him a photograph in the course of investigation. 10. P.W 3, Rama Banerjee and PW 4 Aruna Banerjee are the maternal aunts of PW 1. 11. P.W 3 deposed that she had gone to Presidency Correctional Home during T.I Parade and identified the miscreants before the Magistrate. She also identified the appellant in court. 12. Similarly, P.W 4 stated that she had identified the appellant in T.I Parade as well as in court. 13. P.W 5, Mollika Ganguly is the mother of P.W 1 who also corroborated the evidence of P.W 1 and stated that she suffered injuries in the course of the incident. She deposed that she had identified the appellant in the course of T.I Parade as well as in court. 14. P.W 6 is a post occurrence witness. He came to the house after getting information about the dacoity on 29.9.03. He was informed about the incident by the aforesaid witnesses. She deposed that she had identified the appellant in the course of T.I Parade as well as in court. 14. P.W 6 is a post occurrence witness. He came to the house after getting information about the dacoity on 29.9.03. He was informed about the incident by the aforesaid witnesses. He also found marks of injuries of P.W 1, P.W 3 and P.W 5. He proved his signature on the seizure list prepared by the police officer in the course of investigation. 15. P.W 9 is the magistrate who held test identification parade in the instant case. He deposed that on 11.2.2004 P.W 1, P.W 3 and P.W 4 had identified the appellant in the course of T.I Parade. 16. P.W 10 is the medical practitioner who treated P.W 5 Mollika Ganguly at Lansdowne Nursing Home. He found a cut injury on left ear, left jaw area (1 inch deep cut injury), sliced injury on left forearm (2 and 1/2 inch deep). Patient was taken to operation theatre to repair the injury. On 30.9.2003 he examined her again and after giving necessary advice, discharged her on 1.10.2003. He proved the medical sheets relating to the patient marked as Ext. 10. He deposed that such injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons. 17. P.W 11 is another medical practitioner. He deposed that he had treated P.W 3 Rama Banerjee on 30.9.2003. He also deposed that out of assault she has sustained multiple injuries and fractures on left writ joint (radius) and injuries in the finger of left hand with fracture at the metacarpal (palm) bone. He advised hospitalization. Patient was admitted on 30.9.2003 at Lansdowne Nursing Home where operation was conducted by him and the patient was discharged on 1.10.2003. He proved the medical sheets relating to the patient marked as Ext. 11. 18. P.W 12 is the Investigating Officer in the instant case. He deposed that he visited the place of occurrence. He found that the de facto complainant as well as his mother had suffered bleeding injuries. He found bedding and other articles lying scattered inside the room. He posted guard at the place of occurrence. Victims were taken to nursing home with police assistance. He interrogated P.W 1 and recorded his statement which was treated as FIR and formal FIR marked as Ext. 12 was drawn up. He examined the injured witnesses, collected medical documents and seized articles. He posted guard at the place of occurrence. Victims were taken to nursing home with police assistance. He interrogated P.W 1 and recorded his statement which was treated as FIR and formal FIR marked as Ext. 12 was drawn up. He examined the injured witnesses, collected medical documents and seized articles. He further deposed that he had recorded statements of other witnesses. He arrested one Kesto Naskar, recorded his disclosure statement (Ext. 13) and on the statement of the co-accused Kesto Naskar, chopper was recovered and seized. The seized chopper was produced in Court and identified as Mat Ext. II. T.I Parade was held in respect of the appellant as well as the co-accused and the witnesses identified the miscreants during T.I. Parade. In conclusion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. 19. P.W.2 was the police photographer who took photographs of the place of occurrence on the requisition of I.O. (P.W.12) and exhibited such photographs. 20. From the evidence on record it appears that there was a robbery at the residence of P.W 6 on 29.9.2003 in the afternoon. At the time of commission of offence, PW 1 was gossiping with P.W 3 Rama Banerjee in a room at the first floor of the building while in another room his another maternal aunt Aruna Banerjee (P.W 4) and his mother Mollika Ganguly (P.W 5) were sleeping. Hearing the sound of calling bell, P.W 3 went down to the door on the first floor to open it. After sometime, P.W.1 heard P.W 3 calling him by his name. He went to the entrance door and found three persons standing in front of the door. The appellant was pointing a fire arm at P.W.3 and another was with a chopper. The third person was present near the staircase. P.W 3 was assaulted and suffered injuries. Thereafter, the miscreants demanded Rs. 50,000/- and as P.W 1 was unable to pay he was also assaulted. Thereafter, the miscreants forcibly dragged P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the room where his mother P.W 5 and his another maternal aunt P.W 4 were sleeping. When P.W 5 came to rescue of P.W 1, she was assaulted and suffered bleeding injuries. All of them were locked in a room and compelled to give the keys of an aluminum box wherefrom the miscreants took away Rs. 8500/-. One wrist watch was also stolen. When P.W 5 came to rescue of P.W 1, she was assaulted and suffered bleeding injuries. All of them were locked in a room and compelled to give the keys of an aluminum box wherefrom the miscreants took away Rs. 8500/-. One wrist watch was also stolen. Almirahs were opened and ransacked to find out valuables. As no valuables were found, the miscreants left the house threatening that they would come again three days later and Rs. 50,000/- is to be arranged in the meantime failing which, they would be killed. P.W 1 thereafter went to the police station and lodged complaint. 21. It has also come on record that in the course of investigation the appellant was identified in T.I Parade by P.W 1, P.W 3 and P.W 4. It has been argued that P.W 1 had been shown photograph of the appellant at the police station during investigation. 22. The evidence of P.W 1 is clear and convincing as to the involvement of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the photograph of the appellant had been shown to the witnesses during investigation. That apart, both P.W 3 and P.W 4 have identified the appellant as the miscreant who was armed with a revolver at the time of commission of offence. I do not find any infirmity in the identification of the appellant by the witnesses either in the course of T.I Parade or during trial. Ocular version of injuries suffered by the witnesses during robbery have been duly corroborated by production of injury reports of P.W 1, P.W 3 and P.W 5. 23. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is accordingly upheld. 24. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 25. Connected application being CRAN 260 of 2017 is also dismissed. 26. Detention, if any, suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of section 428 Cr.P.C. 27. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court.