Court highlights failure in establishing accused identification and ownership of stolen property after 38 years
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the acquittal of Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami and others in a decades-old dacoity case, pointing out significant lapses in the prosecution's handling of the matter. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, emphasized the prosecution's failure to convincingly establish the identification of the accused and the ownership of the stolen wristwatch, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the acquittal.
The case dates back to July 31, 1982, when Sukumar Sarkar, a Junior Accountant, reported a robbery at his residence in Begunkodar, Purulia. The incident involved armed individuals who took away jewelry, cash, and a wristwatch. Despite the initial registration of the case by Jhalda Police Station and subsequent charges against the accused under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, the trial court acquitted the respondents in 1988.
During the trial, the prosecution presented 12 witnesses, but inconsistencies and a lack of corroborative evidence undermined the case. The prosecution's reliance on statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was deemed inadmissible due to their failure to lead to the discovery of incriminating articles. Furthermore, the identification of the accused was brought into question, as key witnesses failed to recognize the perpetrators.
Justice Bandyopadhyay's judgment also noted the significant lapse of time since the incident, which further complicated the reliability of witness testimonies and evidence. The court observed that the prosecution could not substantiate the ownership of the wristwatch, a crucial piece of evidence, and that two out of four seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution's claims.
The court acknowledged the efforts of Ms. Monami Mukherjee, the Amicus Curiae, for her assistance in the case and concluded that the substantial lacunae in the prosecution's case, coupled with the passage of nearly four decades, warranted the dismissal of the appeal.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal in dacoity case upheld due to substantial lacunae in prosecution case regarding identification of accused and ownership of stolen article.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 395 and 411; Evidence Act, 1872 Section 27
State of West Bengal v. Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857824
