Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 712 OF 2009
JAHANGIR HUSSAIN ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2010
PARMESHWAR LAL SONI ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
As both these appeals arise out of the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court of
2
Calcutta and are with respect to the same FIR, but by the
different accused persons, both these appeals are being decided
and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. That both the appellants herein (the original accused),
namely, Jahangir Hussain (original accused no.4) and
Parameshwar Lal Soni (original accused no.3) were tried for the
offences punishable under Sections 170/395 of the IPC. The
th
prosecution case in short was that on 7 March, 2000 at about 4
p.m. the accused persons on trial along with another accused
Tony Anthony (since deceased) intercepted one Ranjan Ojha at
the crossing of Brabourne Road and Sukeas Lane within the P.S.
Hara Street, Calcutta and identified themselves as officers of
Customs falsely and asked Ranjan Ojha to get into a taxi. The
said Ranjan Ojha had cash of Rs.5 lakhs with him which he
collected from one Suresh Saraf and Naresh Kumar Kabra being
so directed by his employer Dinesh Kabra. He kept the cash
amount of Rs.5 lakhs in a bag being carried by him. The accused
persons encircled him and then took him forcibly into a
stationary taxi cab after overpowering in him. When he tried to
raise alarm the miscreants covered his mouth with their hands
3
and started assaulting him with fists and blows. The vehicle
sped away from the P.O. and the miscreants snatched the bag
containing cash of Rs. 5 lakhs from the informant Ranjan Ojha.
The informant was then taken to a place in from of premises
No.1, Tapsia Road (South) at about 5 p.m. and he was then
forced out of the taxi which then sped away. The informant then
informed his employer Dinesh Kabra about this incident and
then reported the matter to Tapsia Police Station. It was
specifically stated by the informant that all the miscreants were
of the age group of 25/30 years and the informant hoped that he
would be able to identify them. He also reported the police that
two of the miscreants were carrying mobile phone with them.
After investigation, all the accused were charged for the offences
under Sections 170/395 of the IPC. Initially, there were five
accused persons. However, one of the accused Tony Anthony
died during the pendency of the trial. The remaining accused
pleaded not guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the
learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences. The sessions
Court case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 47/2000.
4
2.1 To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution
examined in all 24 witnesses. The appellants herein – original
accused nos. 4 & 3 respectively, were, in fact, identified by PW2
in the T.I. Parade. There was also recovery of money looted from
the accused persons, i.e., Rs.10,000/ from the custody of
Jahangir Hussain and Rs. 1 lakh from the custody of
Parmeshwar Lal Soni. That after closing pursis was submitted by
the prosecution further statement of the accused persons under
Section 313 CR.P.C. were recorded. That all the incriminating
materials were brought to the notice of the accused. However,
the case of the accused was a case of denial.
3. That thereafter, on appreciation of evidence, the
learned trial Court held the accused Jahangir Hussain (original
accused no.4) guilty for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC
and held the accused Parmeshwar Lal Soni (original accused
no.3) guilty for the offence under Section 412 of the IPC. The
learned trial Court sentenced one Shahid Ali and Jahangir
Hussain to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/, in default, to suffer R.I. for one year each. The
learned trial Court also sentenced Parmeshwar Lal Soni and
5
Ramesh Singh @ Lotan Singh to suffer R.I. for seven years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default, to suffer R.I. for one year
each.
3.1 The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned
trial Court came to be confirmed by the High Court by the
impugned judgment and order.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court,
convicting Jahangir Hussain for the offence under Section 395 of
the IPC and convicting Parmeshwar Lal Soni for the offence
under Section 412 of the IPC, the original accused nos. 4 & 3
have preferred the present appeals.
5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties at length.
5.1 We have gone through and considered in detail the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as well as
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We
have minutely considered and even reappreciated the entire
evidence on record.
6
5.2 Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and considering the findings recorded by both the courts
below and the reasoning given, we are of the opinion that the
courts below have not committed any error in holding Jahangir
Hussain, original accused no.4, guilty for the offence under
Section 395 of the IPC and in holding Parmeshwar Lal Soni,
original accused no.3, guilty for the offence under Section 412 of
the IPC. PW2 has identified Jahangir Hussain in T.I. Parade.
There is a recovery of Rs.1 lakh from the custody and possession
of Parmeshwar Lal Soni and Rs.10,000/ from the custody and
possession of Jahangir Hussain, which were at the instance of
the accused themselves. Therefore, both the courts below have
rightly held the accused guilty for the offences for which they
were tried and convicted.
6. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants, in the alternative, has prayed to impose the lesser
punishment and consequently to modify the sentence imposed by
the courts below mainly on the grounds that the incident had
occurred nearly 19 years ago; that there was no previous
antecedents; Jahangir Hussain at the time of the offence was
7
aged about 28 years in the year 2000 and is now 45 years of age;
that he has an aged father of 70 years and mother of 68 years.
That Parmeshwar Lal Soni has undergone nearly 54 months out
of the total period of 84 months; that he was 48 years of age in
the year 2002 and is now aged about 64 years; it is also
submitted by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
accused – Jahangir Hussain that he is ready to pay the enhanced
fine, although his monetary condition is poor. Hence, he has
prayed for consideration of reducing the sentence to the period
already undergone.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties, we confirm the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, confirming the conviction of the accused
Jahangir Hussain for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC
and conviction of the accused Parmeshwar Lal Soni under
Section 412 of the IPC. However, in the peculiar facts and
surrounding circumstances of the case, we reduce the sentence
from seven years R.I. to five years R.I. and enhance the fine to
Rs.20,000/ each.
8
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
both these appeals succeed in part. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court convicting the accused Jahangir
Hussain under Section 395 of the IPC and convicting the accused
Parmeshwar Lal Soni under Section 412 of the IPC is hereby
confirmed. However, while maintaining the conviction, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by
which the accused are sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. is
hereby modified and both the accused are sentenced to undergo
five years R.I. for the offences for which they are convicted. Both
the accused are ordered to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ each and in
default to undergo further one year R.I. Both these appeals are
partly allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
9. By orders dated 13.04.2009 and 22.03.2010
respectively, both the accused Jahangir Hussain and
Parmeshwar Lal Soni were released on bail by this Court. Hence,
both the accused Jahangir Hussain and Parmeshwar Lal Soni be
taken into custody to serve out the remaining period of their
sentence.
9
………………………………….J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 29, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]