- (1.) All these criminal appeals emanate from the judgment and order of conviction dated 30/3/2015 and 31/3/2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in connection with ST no. 01(01)/2012 by which the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction the appellants have preferred these appeals mainly on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and ingredients of Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code have not been established.
(2.) The defence case, as it appears from the trends of cross-examination and examination of the accused/appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they are innocence and have been falsely implicated. The basis of setting the law into motion is the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Dr. Sunetra Majumder stating that on 05/1/2009 at or about 7.30 p.m. while she along with one Jayanta Banerjee were travelling towards Hooghly Station with a motorbike and when they reached near Panchrakhi village more, 3 to 4 unknown miscreants appeared there. Suddenly, they intercepted them and compelled them to enter into a mango garden. Those miscreants have assaulted them and snatched away her vanity bag and cash of Rs.4,000/- including three mobile phones of different company made. She specifically stated that she could identify if she was taken before the miscreants. Soon after the registration of the FIR, the investigating agency came into operation. The I.O. has recorded the statement of the available witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, placed the victim for recording her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, made a prayer before the learned ACJM for T.I. parade. After the report of T.I. parade and after seizing the snatched articles from the possession of the accused persons, the I.O. had submitted the charge sheet. Pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. the learned Trial Court had framed the aforesaid charges and those were read over and explained them to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) In this case the prosecution is under an obligation to show that the accused persons were at least five or more persons there, they snatched away the articles after assaulting them or putting them into fear of murder thereafter they have taken those articles in their possession knowing it fully well those stolen property/dacoity property. Now I am to consider the relevant part of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as to how far the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. P.W. 1 was the companion of the FIR maker. Actually he was riding the motorbike and FIR maker was the pillion rider. While they were proceeding through the bike, near mango garden suddenly some persons intercepted and forced them to take inside the garden and thereafter her vanity bag, mobile phones were snatched away. In course of T.I. parade she has identified all the suspects.;