Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal by the convict Sanatan alias Sona Layek is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 5-6-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in S.T. Case No. XLIX/ July/97 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1967/ 88. By the said judgment the convict was found guilty under Section 396 of I.P.C. convicted him thereunder and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to undergo R.I. for six months. By the said judgment other three accused persons, namely 1) Anil Patra alias Methra, 2) Diban alias Manu Mandi and Zebra Ari alias Gour Bera were found not guilty to the charge under Section 396 of I.P.C. and accordingly all of them were acquitted under Section 235(2), Cr. P.C.

4. On completion of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet and the case was committed to the Court of Session.

5. Charge under Section 396 of I.P.C. was framed against four available accused persons on 16-9-1997. On 15-1-1998 another charge under Sections 396 and 412, I.P.C. was also framed against accused-Arun Routh.

6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge for which altogether thirty two witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

7. After considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that charge under Section 396 of the I.P.C. was proved against the accused-Sanatan and accordingly he was found guilty thereunder and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinabove.

8. At the very outset it is to be mentioned that though the appeal was filed by the convict Sanatan from the jail, ultimately Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the convict. Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of State.

9. In course of hearing of this appeal Mr. Debasish Roy argued at length pointing out that the prosecution failed to connect the convict Sanatan with the charge under Section 396, I.P.C. for which he is liable to be acquitted.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State scanned the evidence on record and contended that charge under Section 396, I.P.C. was proved against the convict for which the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

15. In this connection we may mention the decisions of the Apex Court in Kalika Tiwari v. State of Bihar 1997 Cri LJ 2531 and in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhoora (1998 Cri LJ 478) in which it was Indicated that all the participants in a particular crime of dacoity with murder are to be construed equally liable under Section 396 of the I.P.C.

16. So after a due consideration of the law on the point and keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the present case, we come to a conclusion that accused-Sanatan was rightly found guilty under Section 396 of the I.P.C. and he was rightly convicted thereunder.