- (1.) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 81 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein by confirming his conviction and sentence passed by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore dated 19/20.12.2005 in Sessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'), Section 25 (1a) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
(2.) Brief facts: (a) As per the prosecution case, on 07.12.1998, at about 13:15 hours, the accused persons, viz., Rajendra Sharma, Sk. Muktar @ Dabbu, Sarban Singh and 2/3 others, armed with revolvers, khojali, bombs etc., committed dacoity in gold jewellery workshops at Gopal Bose Lane and looted gold ornaments weighing about 1820 grams approx. and fled away in two taxis. (b) With regard to the above incident, a written FIR being No. 234 dated 07.12.1998 was registered by Arun Hazra (PW-3) at P.S. Cossipore under Sections 395/397 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. (c) After investigation, the case was committed to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore and was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2000. (d) The trial Court, by order dated 19/20.12.2005 convicted the appellant along with other co-accused under Sections 395/397 IPC and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of 2 years. (e) Being aggrieved of the above said order, the appellants therein preferred separate appeals before the High Court at Calcutta. (f) The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 09.04.2008, dismissed the appeal of the appellant (A-1) and one Sarban Singh affirming their conviction and sentence and set aside the order of conviction and sentence of other co-accused - Ranjit Kumar. (g) Being aggrieved, the appellant (A-1) alone has preferred the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
(3.) Heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the appellant- accused and Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent- State.;