Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Division bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Rai Krishan Kanpur allowed an appeal that challenged the order of the trial court where the appellant was convicted for committing offences (criminal conspiracy and harbouring anti social elements) punishable under S 120-B and 216-A of the IPC.
The matter was regarding an incident of dacoity and rape of a man committed in a convent school at Ranaghat, West Bengal. The appellant was a relative of the accused persons and hence, after committing the ghastly crime, they stayed at the residence of the appellant. The appellant was thus charged for housing the criminals and was convicted. Aggrieved thereby, he filed for an instant petition.
The HC noted that the purpose of letting the accused stay in his house was that they were to attend a marriage. Regarding this, the HC paid note to the case of State v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 where the SC held that mere association with the principal offender or knowledge of the conspiracy cannot deem a person conspirator. In the present case, the HC was convinced that the appellant had no knowledge of the offence. Hence a necessary ingredient for crime was not found and co0nviction could thus not be made.
Regarding the S 216-A of the IPC, the HC noted that the appellant could be charged only when the principal accused had already committed the crime and the appellant had knowledge of that. The appellant must also have harboured the principal offenders with the aim of facilitating them or for screening them from punishment. The Court observed, “…penal liability would not be attracted if a person harbours dacoits in general and it must be proved that he had harboured such dacoits who intended to commit a ‘particular dacoity’…..Knowledge of the appellant with regard to dacoity conducted at the convent does not appear to be proved beyond doubt as evidence of P.W. 11 is too vague to be convincing and the other evidence on record do not inspire confidence to come to such conclusion.”
With these observations, the conviction of the appellant was quashed and he was acquitted.
Gopal Sarkar v. State of W.B., C.R.A. 693 of 2017
86540
103860
630
114
59824