Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Totan De @ Totan Dey vs The State Of West Bengal on 16 April, 2026
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.762 OF 2025
TOTAN DE @ TOTAN DEY ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. With the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up
for hearing.
2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the
appellant herein used to visit the shop of the
complainant to carry out ‘Meena Work’ and on
05.10.2006, he came to the shop and inquired
about the whereabouts of Arun Samanta (PW-18) and
left the shop and, thereafter, within half an
hour, four miscreants armed with firearms and
Signature Not Verified bhojali entered the workshop while two others
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2026.04.17
1
16:30:47 IST
Reason:
stood outside the shop as watch. One of the
miscreants was subsequently identified as Abdul
Sakur Fakir had put the pistol on the head of
Gopal Paramanick (PW-3) and snatched gold chain
from his neck. The miscreants who were in the
shop were also said to have threatened the
workers present therein to handover the gold
ornaments and out of fear, they handed over seven
pieces of gold chain, other unfinished gold
ornaments and after assaulting the workers
present therein, the accused persons locked the
persons in the shop and said to have fled away.
This gave rise to the registration of the FIR for
the offence punishable under Sections 397, 395,
412 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(“IPC”).
4. On completion of the investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed and accused persons
were tried and convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 391 and 120-B of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
2
life and also convicted the appellant under
Section 397 read with Section 120-B of the IPC
with simple imprisonment for seven years and fine
of Rs.5000/-. On challenge being laid to the said
judgment and sentence awarded by the trial court,
the High Court upheld the conviction and reduced
the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the alleged
statement furnished by the appellant to PW-38
with regard to the recovery of gold chain fails
to parting the character of statement as
envisaged under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 (“the Act”). He would also contend that
the statement of the appellant does not contain
any information as to the discovery of the fact
as is required under the law and what the police
officer states as regards the appellant is a
piece of inculpatory statement which is
inadmissible under the law. He would also further
3
contend that there is no evidence to show that
the appellant went to the shop alongwith the
unknown miscreants and the very presence of the
appellant at the spot or the scene of the crime
is highly doubtful and prosecution had failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. He would further elaborate his submission
by contending that PW-18 was not present at the
time of the seizure and neither did he allege
that something or item was seized from the house
of the appellant. In the absence of any seizure
of arms from the possession of the appellant and
none of the workers of the shop having testified
the presence of the appellant alongwith the other
co-accused persons who actually forced entry into
the jewellery shop of PW-18, the conviction of
the appellant would not stand test of law. Hence,
he prays for appeal being allowed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
– State would support the judgment of the trial
court and would submit that the High Court while
4
re-appreciating the entire evidence on record has
affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court
however, has taken a lenient view to reduce the
sentence imposed on the appellant which would not
warrant interference at the hands of the this
court.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing
for the parties and on perusal of the records, it
would disclose that role attributed to the
appellant on the day of the commission of the
crime is firstly he inquired if the owner, i.e.,
PW-18 left the shop or not and, thereafter, i.e.,
within half an hour, the dacoity took place in
the shop of PW-18. It is an admitted fact that
the appellant has worked as an insider who gave
information to the accused persons and
facilitated the commission of dacoity, it is for
this reason the trial court after having taken
note of the evidence of Shambhu Mali (PW-10),
Paresh Patra (PW-7) and Suryakanta Rana (PW-4)
has arrived at a conclusion that there was
5
complicity of the appellant. The evidence of
Investigating Officer, i.e., PW-38 would also
reveal that it is the appellant who led the
police to the Manikanchan Jewellery Shop and also
to the house of De Meena from where the gold
chain which was alleged to have been robbed from
the shop of PW-18 came to be seized and as such
the contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that recovery based on the
statement of the accused would not fall within
the four corners of Section 27 of the Act is an
attractive argument which requires to be brushed
aside and accordingly, it is brushed aside. In
fact, both the Courts have taken note of the Test
Identification Parade (“TIP”) conducted by PW-30
and appellant specifically having been identified
by PW-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, though it was
contended that TIP has been conducted belatedly,
it is a trite law that there is no hard and fast
rule that TIP has to be conducted within a
particular time frame. The delay was in fact on
6
account of the accused themselves were absconding
and they could be arrested only between
26.14.2007 and 01.05.2007 and after obtaining the
appropriate orders from the jurisdictional
Magistrate, TIP was conducted between 18.05.2007
to 04.06.2007. On account of large number of
witnesses having attended the TIP, it was
necessary to hold the same on various dates and
as such the alleged flaw in TIP canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant
before this Court would not hold water. The
afore-stated witnesses have clearly stated that
appellant came to the workshop half an hour prior
to the dacoity and specifically inquired about
the whereabouts of PW-18 and thereafter, he left
the shop and was also found loitering at three
points crossing near the workshop as stated by
Suryakant Rana – PW-4. The evidence of PW-38
would clearly disclose that the prosecution has
proved in the disclosure statements on the
aforesaid of the appellant’s statement leading to
7
recovery. Further, there was no reason for the
appellant to abscond from the place and that too
for long number of months, and it is only after
being apprehended by the jurisdictional police,
he had spilled the beans and the manner in which
dacoity was committed which was in collusion with
other miscreants and same has been proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we do
not find any infirmity either in the findings
recorded by the trial court or by the High Court
which would warrant interference at our hands.
8. Having sustained the conviction, the issue
relating to the sentence would require our
attention. In the instant case, the appellant is
aged about 33 years and has already completed
sentence of nine years with statutory remission
as against ten years imposed by the High Court in
modification to the life imprisonment awarded by
the trial court. By this length of time, there
would have been reformation of the appellant and
as such we are of the considered view that
8
sentence which is already undergone by the
appellant would suffice and meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, the sentence undergone
already by the appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 397 of the IPC is
affirmed. Insofar as the fine imposed under
Section 397 of the IPC is set aside inasmuch as
the fine of Rs.5000/- for each of the offence has
already been imposed under Section 395 of the IPC
and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and
Section 412 of the IPC. Hence, the judgment and
sentence of the High Court stands modified to the
afore-stated extent.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
consigned to record.
………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR)
………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2026.
9
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s).762/2025
TOTAN DE @ TOTAN DEY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
[ONLY IA 268417/2024 IS LISTED UNDER THIS ITEM]
IA No. 268417/2024 – GRANT OF BAIL
Date : 16-04-2026 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P S Dutta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajan Kumar Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR
Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv.
10
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the
following
O R D E R
Criminal Appeal is disposed of in terms of
the signed order placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(NEHA GUPTA) (AVGV RAMU)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
11
