Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Dacoity Case, Validates Test Identification Parade”

Credibility of Witness Identification and Recovery of Stolen Items Emphasized in Upholding Section 395 IPC Conviction -  The High Court of Calcutta has upheld the conviction of Ujjal Raha @ Nobu for his involvement in a dacoity case, maintaining the trial court’s decision. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, underscores the critical role of the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) and the recovery of stolen items based on the appellant’s statements. The court reaffirmed the appellant’s conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The case stems from an incident on April 10, 2006, when the driver of a truck, Md. Sahidur Sk., along with two khalasis, was hijacked by a group of miscreants who forcibly took over the truck and stole personal belongings. The truck was transporting sand from Islam Bazar and was intercepted near New Barrackpore No. 8 Rail Gate by a group in a Tata Sumo. The hijackers, wielding firearms, made the victims board their vehicle, tied them up, and abandoned them in a remote area. Following the incident, the victims reported the crime, leading to the arrest and trial of several individuals, including Ujjal Raha.

The court placed significant weight on the witness identification during the T.I.P. and in-court testimonies. Justice Bandyopadhyay noted, “The identification of the appellant by multiple victims during the T.I.P. and their consistent testimonies in court were pivotal in establishing his guilt.” Witnesses, including the driver and khalasis, unequivocally identified Ujjal Raha and corroborated the sequence of events leading to the crime.

The recovery of stolen personal belongings, such as a silver locket and wristwatch, based on the appellant’s statements was deemed admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court held that the recovery, supported by seizure witnesses, strengthened the prosecution’s case. “The recovery of stolen items directly linking the appellant to the crime provides substantial corroborative evidence,” the judgment stated.

The judgment detailed the application of Sections 390, 391, and 395 of the IPC, explaining the definitions and punishments related to robbery and dacoity. Justice Bandyopadhyay emphasized, “For an act to constitute dacoity, it must involve five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery.” The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the involvement of the appellant and his accomplices in the dacoity, fulfilling the legal requirements under the IPC.

Justice Bandyopadhyay remarked, “The identification of the accused persons through the Test Identification Parade and the recovery of stolen articles corroborate the victims’ testimonies and establish the commission of the offense.” She further noted, “The T.I.P. process was conducted with due diligence, ensuring the credibility of the identification.”

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction of Ujjal Raha reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to delivering justice in cases of serious crimes like dacoity. The judgment underscores the importance of witness testimonies and the procedural integrity of evidence recovery. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases, emphasizing the reliability of T.I.P. and the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Date of Decision: 14^th May 2024

Ujjal Raha @ Nobu vs. State of West Bengal