- (1.) THIS appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for hearing by consent of parties. As the accused appellants have almost served the entire sentence, learned counsel, on instructions, did not wish to press the appeal. We have, however, considered the appeal on merits.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against a Judgement and Order dated 19th February, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore whereby the appellant No.1 has been convicted for charges under Section 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.2 has been convicted of charges under Section 392/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Court passed the following sentence on the same day. "Hence, it is, Ordered That the convicts Feroz Khandekar and Md. Siddique be sentenced to RI for 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ - each, I.D. R.I. for six months each for the offence punishable u/s 392 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to RI for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.1000/ - each ID RI for six months each for the offence punishable u/s 397 of I.P.C. and accused Md. Siddique be sentenced to RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/ - I.D. RI for 3 months for the offence punishable us 412 of I.P.C. and all the sentences will run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by the convicts in the meanwhile be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment."
(3.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution was that on 03.04.2004, the de facto complainant, Vijay Khanna, whose wife, Anamika Khanna owns a readymade garment workshop on the second floor of 1A, Hazra Road, Kolkata was robbed of his briefcase, containing Rs.1,70,000/ - in cash and other papers and documents, at about 3:30 p.m. after he got down from his car in front of the said premises and started climbing up the stairs. In between the landing of the ground floor and the first floor, a young man aged about 26/27 snatched the briefcase away from the de facto complainant Vijay Khanna, while another young man of the same age pointed a firearm at the de facto complainant and threatened him. During investigation, the accused persons were arrested, TI Parade was held, and these appellants were identified in the TI Parade. The interrogation of the accused Md. Siddiqui led to the recovery of robbed money and articles. On perusal of the Judgement and Order under appeal, we find no grounds to interfere with the same. In all ten witnesses were examined. There was evidence to show withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/ - by the prosecution witness No.5 who handed over the amount to the de facto complainant Vijay Khanna (P.W. 2) whose briefcase had been snatched. On the basis of the statement made to police by the accused appellant Md. Siddique the robbed briefcase containing robbed money was recovered from a jhupri at Santragachi station under the occupation of one Urmila Paswan elder sister of the accused appellant Md. Siddique. Some money was according to the prosecution recovered from the accused Rafique Islam. However the accused Rafique Islam was acquitted since he was not identified in T.I. Parade and the prosecution could not prove recovery from him of robbed money.;