Supreme Court upholds robbery conviction, reduces sentence: Jahangir Hussain vs. State of West Bengal (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 256

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and M.R. Shah, J.

Can a conviction for robbery and receiving stolen property be upheld based on witness testimony and recovery of stolen money? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where the accused were convicted for robbery and receiving stolen property. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both sides to determine the validity of the convictions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice M.R. Shah, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

On March 7, 2000, at approximately 4 p.m., Ranjan Ojha was intercepted by several individuals, including Jahangir Hussain and Parmeshwar Lal Soni, near the crossing of Brabourne Road and Sukeas Lane in Calcutta. The individuals falsely identified themselves as Customs officers and forced Ranjan Ojha into a taxi. Ranjan Ojha was carrying ₹5 lakhs in cash, which he had collected from Suresh Saraf and Naresh Kumar Kabra, as directed by his employer, Dinesh Kabra. The accused persons surrounded him, forced him into a stationary taxi, and covered his mouth when he tried to raise an alarm. They then assaulted him and snatched the bag containing the cash. Ranjan Ojha was later forced out of the taxi near premises No. 1, Tapsia Road (South), around 5 p.m. He reported the incident to his employer and then to the Tapsia Police Station. He stated that the miscreants were between 25 and 30 years old and that he could identify them. He also mentioned that two of them had mobile phones.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, five accused persons were charged under Sections 170 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). One of the accused, Tony Anthony, died during the trial. The remaining accused pleaded not guilty and were tried by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court found Jahangir Hussain guilty under Section 395 of the IPC (robbery) and Parmeshwar Lal Soni guilty under Section 412 of the IPC (receiving stolen property). Both were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of ₹5,000, with an additional year of RI in default of payment. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 170, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of impersonating a public servant. It states, “Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of dacoity. It states, “Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 412, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the offense of dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity. It states, “Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong to a gang of dacoits, any property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are as follows:

Appellant (Jahangir Hussain):

• The appellant argued that the incident occurred nearly 19 years ago.
• He had no previous criminal record.
• He was about 28 years old at the time of the offense and is now 45 years old.
• He has aged parents to support.
• He is willing to pay an enhanced fine despite his poor financial condition.
• He requested that the sentence be reduced to the period already served.

Appellant (Parmeshwar Lal Soni):

• The appellant argued that the incident occurred nearly 19 years ago.
• He has already served nearly 54 months out of the total 84 months of his sentence.
• He was 48 years old in 2002 and is now about 64 years old.
• He requested that the sentence be reduced to the period already served.

Respondent (State of West Bengal):

• The State argued that the trial court and High Court had correctly convicted the accused based on the evidence.
• The prosecution highlighted the identification of Jahangir Hussain by PW2 in the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade).
• The prosecution emphasized the recovery of ₹1 lakh from Parmeshwar Lal Soni and ₹10,000 from Jahangir Hussain, which were at the instance of the accused themselves.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the conviction of Jahangir Hussain under Section 395 of the IPC and Parmeshwar Lal Soni under Section 412 of the IPC was justified based on the evidence presented.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 170, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to impersonating a public servant.
• Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the offense of dacoity.
• Section 412, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with dishonestly receiving property stolen during a dacoity.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court upheld the conviction under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, 1860* for Jahangir Hussain, as the evidence supported the charge of dacoity.
• The Court upheld the conviction under Section 412, Indian Penal Code, 1860* for Parmeshwar Lal Soni, as the evidence supported the charge of receiving stolen property.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors. The primary factors were the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the witness testimony and the recovery of stolen money from the accused. The court also considered the mitigating circumstances presented by the appellants, such as the time elapsed since the incident, their lack of prior criminal records, and their personal circumstances. The court aimed to balance the need for justice with the personal hardships faced by the accused.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have led to a different conclusion regarding the conviction. The primary focus was on the evidence of guilt and the mitigating factors for sentencing.

The Court’s decision was to confirm the convictions but reduce the sentences. The Court stated, “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.” The court also noted, “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.” The court further added, “Both the accused are ordered to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default to undergo further one year R.I.”

Key Takeaways

• Convictions for robbery (Section 395, IPC) and receiving stolen property (Section 412, IPC) can be upheld based on credible witness testimony and recovery of stolen property.
• Courts consider mitigating factors such as the time elapsed since the incident, lack of prior criminal records, and personal circumstances when determining sentences.
• The Supreme Court can modify sentences imposed by lower courts while upholding the conviction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that both Jahangir Hussain and Parmeshwar Lal Soni be taken into custody to serve the remaining period of their sentences, as they were earlier released on bail by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that convictions under Section 395 and Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code can be upheld based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and recovery of stolen property. While the court upheld the convictions, it reduced the sentence, demonstrating a balanced approach considering the mitigating circumstances and the need for justice. This case reinforces the importance of witness testimony and recovery of stolen property as key pieces of evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, upholding the conviction of Jahangir Hussain under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and Parmeshwar Lal Soni under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court reduced their sentences from seven years to five years of rigorous imprisonment and enhanced the fine to ₹20,000 each, with an additional year of imprisonment in default of payment. The court balanced the evidence of guilt with the mitigating circumstances presented by the appellants.