- (1.) Three appeals have been filed by the respective appellants on the self-same grounds and since the facts and evidence as well as the legal positions are common, it would be appropriate to pass a common judgment for the three appeals. Challenging the legal pregnability and the validity of the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour in ST No. 9(7)04/ST No. 5(8)05 and GR case no. 496 of 2004, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The main grievances of the appellants are such that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence and legal aspects of the matter in its proper perspective.
(2.) The appellants contended that they have been convicted only under Section 412 IPC and the case under Section 395/397 read with Indian Explosives Act have been ended in acquittal. At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there was a T.I. Parade in respect of the articles but the witnesses who had identified their articles claiming to be their own has given a sommersault at the time of deposition. The witness who has identified the silver made necklace has stated before the court that his wrist watch was stolen. At the same time, other witnesses who had stated that his wrist watch (HMT) were snatched away by the miscreants before the court but he identified the silver made necklace as of his own. This point has not been covered up by the prosecution. Naturally, chance of doubt is there. The most important aspect of the matter is such that the appellants relied on the basis of the disclosure statement. It appears from the exhibit list that the statements of the appellants were taken and their relevant part of deposition has been made as exhibit. In those statements, the appellants have disclosed where those articles were kept and if they were taken to that place, they could produce the same. But the seizure list speaks that the appellants had produced those documents from their possession while they were taken to their residence. There is no iota of evidence that the appellants were taken to any hidden place and from that place the appellant had produced those articles. It was necessary on the part of the I.O. to record their further statement disclosing the place from where those articles were recovered and there is noncompliance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Police Officer has been injured by a bomb explosion, remnants were collected but no report was there. This apart, most of the witnesses who were in the bus, turned hostile to the prosecution and evidence of others also were not inspiring. Not only that, soon after the arrest of the accused-appellant, no T.I. Parade was held at the instance of the prosecution. Considering the gravity of the matter and the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the prosecution could not establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
(3.) In such circumstances, the impugned order of conviction is to be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal appeals being CRA 183 of 2007, CRA 210 of 2007 and CRA 132 of 2009 are hereby allowed. The convict appellants who are in custody be released forthwith if they are not connected with any other case. Let a copy of this order and the entire lower court record be sent down to the learned court below accordingly. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.;