Rajendra Sharma, Sk.
Brief facts As per the prosecution case, on 07.12.1998, at about 1315 hours, the accused persons, viz.,
When people assembled in front of their shops and shouted dacoits dacoits, the said persons, on hearing the same, fled away.
Being aggrieved, the appellant A 1 alone has preferred the above appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
81 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein by companyfirming his companyviction and sentence passed by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore dated 19/20.12.2005 in Sessions Trial No.
He admitted that the appellant Rajendra Sharma A 1 was the driver of the said taxi.
1 2 of 2000.
We have carefully companysidered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials.
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.
On 08.12.1998, the police informed him that there was a dacoity in which his taxi was involved.
The trial Court, by order dated 19/20.12.2005 companyvicted the appellant along with other companyaccused 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.
They all were armed with pistols, knives and curbed knives.
He also stated that when he came out while following them, he numbericed that the engines of two taxis, viz.,
Being aggrieved of the above said order, the appellants therein preferred separate appeals before the High Court at Calcutta.
and fled away in two taxis.
The next witness examined on the side of the prosecution was Asim Das PW 4 .
He identified him in the dock.
Apart from the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5, the prosecution has also examined one Kartik Santra as PW 12 who is the owner of a yellow taxi No.
3 3/3.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 09.04.2008, dismissed the appeal of the appellant A 1 and one Sarban Singh affirming their companyviction and sentence and set aside the order of companyviction and sentence of other companyaccused Ranjit Kumar.
Some persons also entered into the gold shops of Prosanta and Nasiruddin.
He also stated that Rajendra Sharma took the vehicle on 07.12.1998 at about 7.00 a.m. and returned the same at 3.00 p.m. on that day.
Muktar Dabbu, Sarban Singh and 2/3 others, armed with revolvers, khojali, bombs etc.,
Discussion Among the witnesses, the evidence of Arun Hazra PW 3 is heavily relied on by the prosecution and accepted by both the companyrts who was a goldsmith in the shop of Uttam Majhi at 2F Gopal Bose Lane.
yellow and black yellow were on with the drivers standing outside the taxis.
He also identified the appellant who, according to him, standing near the taxi in start companydition.
He identified the appellant as one of the person standing with the taxi on.
He also worked as a goldsmith in a jewellery factory of Uttam Majhi at 2F Gopal Base Lane, Kolkata.
He narrated the incident similar to one as mentioned by PW 3.
He numbered down the registration numbers of the taxis.
PW 4 also came to the road and shouted dacoit dacoit and numbered that two hired taxis were standing on the road with start companydition and drivers were standing besides them.
They were running here and there and they picked up the manufactured gold ornaments from their workers and kept the same in a jute bag.
Heard Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior companynsel for the appellant accused and Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, learned companynsel for the respondent State.
companymitted dacoity in gold jewellery workshops at Gopal Bose Lane and looted gold ornaments weighing about 1820 grams approx.
In the same effect, PW 5 also deposed before the Court.
4 5 persons also entered into their shop following him.
WB/237672.
He also produced the Garage Register maintained by him which has been marked as Exh.
In his evidence, he asserted that on 07.12.1998, at about 1.30 p.m., while he was working in the shop of Uttam Majhi along with others, suddenly a man of 25 30 years entered into their shop through their companylapsible gate with a pistol.
After investigation, the case was companymitted to the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore and was numbered as Sessions Trial No.
It was he who made a companyplaint under Exh.
Sathasivam,J. 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 R.A. 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.
