Dismissed¶57

State of West Bengal v. Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami

Calcutta HC24 Feb 2026GA/19/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal; dacoity Section 395 IPC; Section 412 IPC; Begunkodar; Jhalda Police Station; Purulia; Additional Sessions Judge; Sessions Trial No.1 of 1988; wrist watch seizure; Test Identification Parade; hostile seizure witness PW-1 PW-11; Section 27 Indian Evidence Act; Zimma lamp; amicus curiae; 38-year-old appeal; no interference with acquittal; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal undisturbed, with no order as to costs. ¶57

State of West Bengal Vs Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal undisturbed, with no order as to costs.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia, in favour of the respondents charged under Sections 395/412 IPC, which the appellant contended was unwarranted and caused a grave failure of justice. +3 more

¶34

Court's answer

In view of the discussions and a lapse of 38 years in disposing of the appeal and since the incident, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No.4 of 1985.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

There had been substantial lacunae in the prosecution case as far as identification is concerned, and the ownership of the wrist watch said to have been stolen could not be proved by the prosecution.

¶56

Key takeaways

There had been contradictions with regard to the seizure of the wrist watch; PW-1 and PW-11 did not support the seizure of the same.ratio¶52
The statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 divulging the accused's involvement to the Investigating Officer did not have legal credibility.ratio¶54
The claim of identification of the charged persons in the light of a lamp stood blurred, since PW-6 Sukumar Sarkar, PW-7 Anita Sarkar and PW-9 Bijan Kumar Banerjee stated to have failed to identify any miscreants, and PW-6 stated the lamp to have been lost in course of time.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) dismissed G.A. 19 of 1988, the State of West Bengal's appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No.1 of 1988 (arising out of Sessions Case No.4 of 1985), whereby Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami and others, charged under Sections 395/412 IPC for a dacoity at Begunkodar on July 31, 1982, had been acquitted. The Court found substantial lacunae in the prosecution case on identification (PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 failed to identify any miscreant; the lamp given in the Zimma of PW-6 was lost/not produced), contradictions in the seizure of the recovered wrist watch (seizure witnesses PW-1 and PW-11 did not support the seizure), Section 27 Indian Evidence Act statements lacking legal credibility, and failure to prove ownership of the wrist watch; noting a lapse of 38 years, it declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, recording appreciation for the Amicus Curiae.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

¶5

G.A. 19 of 1988

¶6

The State of West Bengal

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami and Ors.

¶9

For the Appellant/State : Ms. Sreyashee Biswas Ms. Puja Goswami For the Respondent nos.1 & 3 : Ms. Monami Mukherjee (Learned Amicus Curiae) Judgment on : 24.02.2026

¶10

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

¶11

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.1988 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No.4 of 1985 (Sessions Trial No.1 of 1988) under Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

The prosecution case precisely stated that one Sukumar Sarkar, being the Junior Accountant at C.A.D.P. Office at Begunkodar, alleged as follows:-

¶13

“On July 31, 1982 at about 07:30 p.m. while the complainant along with his wife namely Smt. Amita Sarkar, being examined as PW-7, and one Bijan Kumar Banerjee being examined as PW-9 and one Sunil Kumar Ghosh were

¶14

¶15

gossiping at his quarter at that time one person of black complexion and short in height with turban on his head entered in the said room with a Tangi in his hand. Subsequently, three more persons followed that black complexion short build person inside the room being armed with deadly weapon. Some other persons were also gathered outside the said room of the complainant. Those persons who got inside the room of the showed them deadly weapons and demanded the valuable articles from the room, the wife of the complainant the PW-7 handed over them her Jewelleries and also took away cash amount of Rs.858/- and one wrist watch from the said Bijan Kumar Banerjee, being examined as PW-9. Thereafter, they fled away from the backside of the said quarter.”

¶16

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Jhalda Police Station registered the case which was subsequently culminated into charge-sheet on completion of investigation and charges were framed under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents No. 1 and 2 and under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No. 3 and vide Judgement and order dated March 31, 1988 the respondents have been acquitted from the charges so framed against them by the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1988 arising out of Sessions Case No. 4 of 1985.

¶17

During the trial, the prosecution had examined total 12 witnesses whereas the defence had examined none. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶18

¶19

The circumspection of evidence of the prosecution witnesses revealed as follows:-

¶20

i. PW-1 went to the house of the respondent No.1 and the police arrested him. Subsequently the police arrested the respondent No.2 and both of them had taken the police to the house of respondent no.3, where the police prepared a seizure list on which he signed. PW-1 further deposed to have been not examined by the police and was subsequently declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶21

ii. PW-2, a member of raiding team, deposed that a search and seizure had been conducted at the house of respondent nos.1 and 2 but incriminating articles had not been recovered, although pursuant to their leading statement further raid was conducted at the house of respondent no.6 and from his house one wrist watch had been recovered and he signed the seizure list.

¶22

iii. PW-3 conducted raid along with others at the house of the respondent no.1 and 2 on October 8, 1982 but incriminating articles had not been recovered from their house and pursuant to their leading statement conducted raid at the house of the respondent No.3 and wherefrom one wrist watch had been recovered.

¶23

iv. PW-4, the Learned Magistrate, had conducted Test Identification Parade of recovered wrist watch. PW-9 identified the wrist watch in his presence.

¶24

¶25

v. PW-5 was the colleague of the de facto complainant and he was a post occurrence witness. He heard the incident from the de facto complainant.

¶26

vi. PW-6 was the de facto complainant and one of the victims.

¶27

vii. PW-7, the wife of the de facto complainant was one of the victims.

¶28

viii. PW-8, one of the neighbours of the de-facto complainant was a post occurrence witness. He heard the incident from PW-6.

¶29

ix. PW-9, one of the neighbours of the complainant deposed the miscreants to have taken his wrist watch. He was one of the victims. He deposed that four miscreants entered with deadly weapons and on point of those weapons he was forced to give away his wrist watch. Subsequently, he identified the said wrist watch before the Learned Magistrate.

¶30

x. PW-10 one of the neighbours of the de-facto complainant was a post occurrence witness. He heard the incident from the complainant.

¶31

xi. PW-11 independent seizure witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

¶32

xii. PW-12 was the Investigating Officer.

¶33

The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted as follows:-

¶34

i. Upon the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and other materials on record, the order of acquittal was unwarranted and had caused a grave failure of justice.

¶35

ii. The finding of the Learned Trial Judge, as the lamp which was seized by the police and which was given in the Zimma of PW-6 was not

¶36

¶37

produced in Court, no reliance could be placed upon the identification of the accused, was unwarranted.

¶38

iii. The finding of the Learned Trial Judge that the statement made by the accused’s under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, was recorded after 8 days of the occurrence and as such no reliance could be placed upon it’s unwarranted.

¶39

iv. The Learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence regarding seizure of the wrist watch because two out of four seizure list witnesses had not support the prosecution case regarding seizure at the trial.

¶40

v. The Learned Judge disbelieved the identification of the wrist watch by PW-4 in the T.I. Parade which had caused a grave failure of justice.

¶41

Learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted as follows:-

¶42

i. PW-7 and PW-9 being the eye witnesses had corroborated with the version of the PW-6, i.e. the de facto complainant.

¶43

ii. All the eye witnesses deposed 4 persons had entered inside the room armed with deadly weapon and took away all the valuables from them on point of weapons which attracted the ingredients of Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶44

iii. Pursuant to the leading statement of the respondent nos.1 and 2, the police conducted a raid at the house of the respondent no.3 and from his house the wrist watch of PW-9 had been recovered and the same attracted the ingredients of Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶45

¶46

iv. The recovered wrist watch had been duly identified by the PW-9 before the Learned Magistrate who had subsequently been examined as PW-4.

¶47

v. PW-2 and PW-3 were the police personnel who signed the seizure list and they had corroborated the version of the prosecution.

¶48

vi. Although PW-1, the independent seizure witness, had been declared hostile, however he deposed he had signed a seizure list at the house of the respondent no.3.

¶49

vii. The statements of the respondents had been recorded after a considerable period but the same was recorded immediately after the seizure. However such delay in recording the statement of the respondents did not vitiate the prosecution case.

¶50

The Learned Trial Court had rightly considered that the Investigating Agency failed to trace the actual ownership of the stolen writ watch. The alleged incident of dacoity occurred on 31.07.1982 and the subsequent statement of Bijan Kumar Banerjee was recorded on 21^st of February, 1982 nearly after 3 months of the alleged incident.

¶51

The Learned Trial Court expressed doubt regarding the memory of said Bijan Kumar Banerjee (PW-9) to remember the number of wrist watch which he failed to cite at the very first instance. Despite the fact of initial denial of Bijan Kumar Banerjee to recollect the number of the wrist watch.

¶52

There had been contradictions with regard to the seizure of the wrist watch. PW-1 and PW-11 did not support the seizure of the same. The statement

¶53

¶54

recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 divulging their involvement to the Investigating Officer did not have legal credibility.

¶55

The claim of identification of the charged persons in the light of a lamp gets blurred since PW-6 Sukumar Sarkar, PW-7 Anita Sarkar and PW-9 Bijan Kumar Banerjee stated to have failed to identify any miscreants. PW-6 stated the lamp to have been lost in course of time. The statement of the opposite party Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami before the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as per the document marked as Exhibit-4 depicts a confession which leads to discovery of an incriminating article and, therefore, such a statement becomes inadmissible in evince being hit by the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶56

There had been substantial lacunae in the prosecution case as far as the identification is concerned. Moreover, the veracity of the wrist watch to have been stolen as regards the ownership of the same could not be proved by the prosecution. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussions as well as a lapse of 38 years in disposing of the instant appeal and the incident, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No.4 of 1985.

¶57

Accordingly, the instant appeal being GA 19 of 1988 stands dismissed.

¶58

There is no order as to costs.

¶59

I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by the Learned Advocate Ms. Monami Mukherjee, as Amicus Curiae in disposing of the appeal.

¶60

¶61

Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action.

¶62

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.

¶63

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether this Court should interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia, in favour of the respondents charged under Sections 395/412 IPC, which the appellant contended was unwarranted and caused a grave failure of justice.¶34
The court held
In view of the discussions and a lapse of 38 years in disposing of the appeal and since the incident, this Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Case No.4 of 1985.ratio¶56
2.
Whether reliance could be placed on the identification of the accused where the lamp seized by the police and given in the Zimma of PW-6 was not produced in Court, as found by the Learned Trial Judge.medium confidence¶37
The court held
The claim of identification of the charged persons in the light of a lamp stood blurred, since PW-6 Sukumar Sarkar, PW-7 Anita Sarkar and PW-9 Bijan Kumar Banerjee stated to have failed to identify any miscreants, and PW-6 stated the lamp to have been lost in course of time.ratio¶55
3.
Whether the statements of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, recorded days after the occurrence, could be relied upon by the prosecution.medium confidence¶38
The court held
The statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 divulging the accused's involvement to the Investigating Officer did not have legal credibility.ratio¶54
4.
Whether the seizure of the wrist watch and its identification in the T.I. Parade were established, given that two of four seizure-list witnesses did not support the seizure at trial and doubt was cast on PW-9's memory of the watch number and on the ownership of the watch.medium confidence¶39
The court held
There had been substantial lacunae in the prosecution case as far as identification is concerned, and the ownership of the wrist watch said to have been stolen could not be proved by the prosecution.ratio¶56

State of West Bengal v. Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of West Bengal v. Debabrata @ Bapi Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanat Roy Vs the Regional P.F. Commissioner,Howrah and Ors.

In the Goods of : Srimati Kironmoyee Das (Dec) Vs

In the Goods of : Manjula Datta (Deceased) Vs

Baneshwar Mahato Vs Bishnupada Mahato

Pranab Roy Vs the State of W.B.

Pabitra Ganguly Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.