Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.740 of 2002
[Against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05th
October, 2002 and 7th October, 2002 respectively passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court-II, Giridih in S.T. No.297
of 2000]
------
1. Shambhu Kumar Pandey, son of Onkar Pandey, resident of
village-Rampur, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda, Bihar
2. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, son of Upendra Pandey, resident of
village-Mathurapur, P.S.-Noor Sarai, District-Nalanda(Bihar)
3. Arvind Kumar, son of Late Ganouri Mahto, resident of village-
Bhagwanpur, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda, Bihar
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant s : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
------
CAV On 08/09/2025 Pronounce On 22/09/2025 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwary, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by above named appellants for setting aside impugned judgment of conviction Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) and sentence dated 05th October, 2002 and 7th October, 2002 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court-II, Giridih in S.T. No.297 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under sections 392, 394 read with section 397 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for each offence, which are directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellants were charged for commission of offences under sections 394, 397 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and they have been acquitted for the charge under section 411 of IPC. FACTUAL MATRIX:-
4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 23.05.2000 at about 13:00 hours, four miscreants entered into Allahabad Bank, Giridih Branch with revolvers and one of them opened fire, which hit the roof of the office, one of the miscreants having beard showed pistol to bank staff, Arun Kumar Sharma and in the meantime, another miscreants also arrived there. It is alleged that the beard person snatched the gun of the bank guard, namely, Ram Pratap Mishra and assaulted him with a butt of the revolver on head. Thereafter, the third miscreant went to the informant, Sushil Kumar Toppo and manager, Jay John Minz and held them on the point of revolver. It is further alleged that one miscreant entered into the cash counter threatening the cashier, Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) Devendra Choudhary and robbed entire money available in the cash counter putting in a bag and started fleeing away through the stairs. It is further alleged that the informant along with bank employees ran towards the road side raising alarm and one miscreant having beard was apprehended with the bag of money robbed from the bank along with the gun of the guard. Several passerby also assembled and two other miscreants, who were fleeing away on a motorcycle were also apprehended. All the miscreants were handed over to the police, who disclosed their names as Arvind Kumar, Shambhu Kumar Pandey and Sanjay Kumar Pandey and also disclosed the name of their associate, who managed to flee away. All the three miscreants were found in possession of revolver and live cartridges. They were also assaulted by public. It is alleged that total cash of Rs.6,70,420/- was looted, which had been recovered from the miscreants.
On the basis of fardbayan of the informant, Sushil Kumar Toppo, Giridih Town P.S. Case No.102 of 2000 was registered for the offences under sections 394 and 411 of Indian Penal Code. Later on vide order dated 29.06.2000, section 397 was added. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, C.J.M., Giridih committed the case to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No.297 of Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) 2000 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed as stated above.
5. In course of trial altogether, 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely:
P.W.1- Ram Pratap Mishra (Guard of Bank) P.W.2-Sushil Kumar Toppo (Informant-cum-Assistant Branch Manager) P.W.3- Jwala Prasad Arya, (Cashier of Bank) P.W.4-Ratan Razak, (Sweeper of Bank) P.W.5-Manoj Kumar (Peon in Bank) P.W.6- Devendra Choudhary, (Cashier in Bank) P.W.7-Jay John Minz (Branch Manager of Bank) P.W.8-Arun Kumar Sharma (Employee of Bank) P.W.9-Kallu Mian P.W.10- Ajay Kumar Sinha P.W.11- S.I., Sri L.N. Tiwary of Giridih (T) P.S. and Investigating Officer.
6. Apart from oral evidence the prosecution has adduced the following documentary evidence, which are as under:-
Ext.1 to 1/2-Signature of Informant and witnesses on Fardbayan Ext.2-Jimanama Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) Ext.2/1-Signature on Jimanama Paper Ext.3-Seizure list Ext.4 to 4/1-Signature of witnesses on the production- cum-seizure list.
Ext.5- Signature of witness, Jai John Minz on seizure list Ext.6-Signature of I.O. on fardbayan Ext.7-Endorsement of I.O. on fardbayan Ext.8-Formal FIR Ext.9-Signature on Formal FIR of I.O. Ext.10-Signature of Police Officer on Seizure list Ext.11-Production-cum-Seizure list of currency Ext.12-Seizure list of motorcycle Ext.13 to 13/1-Injury report of injured J.J. Minj and Jawala Prasad Arya respectively.
7. Apart from above, one witness namely Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad has been examined as a Court Witness and defence has also examined one witness namely Nageshwar Pandey (D.W.1).
Submission on behalf of appellants:-
8. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Venketateshwar Gopal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that no charge under section 392 of IPC was framed but the appellants Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) have been convicted thereunder. The appellants have already been acquitted from the charge under section 411 of IPC, therefore, the alleged robbery in the bank itself becomes falsified as no seizure list of any looted money was prepared nor the looted currency notes were exhibited during trial as material exhibits. The ingredients of offences under sections 394 and 397 of IPC are also not attracted in the factual background of the case.
9. It is further submitted that altogether 11 witnesses were examined in this case, out of them, P.W. 1-Ram Pratap Mishra, P.W.2- Sushil Kumar Toppo, P.W.3- Jwala Prasad Arya, P.W.4- Ratan Razak, P.W.5-Manoj Kumar, P.W.6-Devendra Choudhary, P.W.7-Jay John Minz and P.W.8-Arun Kumar Sharma are bank employees. Out of them, except P.W.7-Jay John Minz, Branch Manager, P.W.1-Ram Pratap Mishra, the guard of bank and P.W.5-Manoj Kumar, the peon of the bank have claimed to identify the appellants present behind the dock. It is submitted that the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses, who identified the appellants, cannot be believed due to lapse of time in as much as the occurrence took place on 23.05.2000 but they have been examined in the month of July, 2001 after 14 months of the occurrence.
10. The testimony of above witnesses also suffers from material contradictions and discrepancies as regards manner of Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) occurrence, presence and participation of the accused persons in the alleged crime. None of the witnesses have sustained any grievous injuries in course of alleged occurrence. Therefore, offence under section 397 of IPC is not attracted in this case at all. It is further submitted that learned trial court has miserably failed to appreciate the defence of the appellants that they had come to village Sihodih for attending Grih Pravesh ceremony of their uncle Nageshwar Pandey and while they were going to bring some puja materials riding on a motorcycle and reached near the Allahabad Bank, they were misunderstood by members of public to be miscreants, therefore, they were apprehended and assaulted. Nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of the appellants as claimed by the prosecution. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on beyond the weight of evidence and improper appreciation thereof, which is liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve acquittal.
In the alternative, it is pleaded that all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. of 10 years. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment itself that the appellants have no criminal background and it was their first offence. No looted money was recovered from their possession and they have gone under considerable period of sentence i.e. more than 4 years each. The occurrence is of the year, 2000 and more than Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) two and half decades has been lapsed. The appellants have not indulged in other criminal activities and have settled in their life in main stream. In the above facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is fit to be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone. Submission on behalf of State
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.
12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that "as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this appeal?"
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
13. We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of respective parties.
14. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the accused persons.
Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB )
15. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion. All the accused persons are closely related with each other and they have come to the house of Nageshwar Pandey (D.W.1) for attending Chandi Path organized prior to the Grih Pravesh ceremony. The accused persons have gone to bring some Puja articles, where on the basis of suspicion they were apprehended by public. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused persons.
16. First of all, we have to consider the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
P.W.1-Ram Pratap Mishra is a guard of Allahabad Bank and he has consistently supported the prosecution story and deposed that on 23.05.2000 at about 1:00 pm, three miscreants entered into the bank premises and caught hold of him along with gun. In the struggle with the accused persons, one fire was opened and he was also assaulted by miscreants after snatching his gun, who were holding the revolver. Thereafter, they went towards cash counter and snatched money available in cash box. Two miscreants also fired and went out the bank. Meanwhile, the manager blew the siren of the bank and all the three miscreants were apprehended by the public and the looted cash was also recovered. The apprehended persons disclosed their names as Arvind Kumar, Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) Shambu Kumar Pandey and another was also Pandey, who disclosed his name as Sanjay Kumar Pandey. They have been identified by this witness. In the said incident, bank staffs, Sushil Kumar Toppo, Jwala Prasad Arya and Jay John Minz have sustained injuries. The looted cash Rs.6,70,420/- was also recovered from the possession of the miscreants.
There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut or disbelieve his testimony.
P.W.2-Sushil Kumar Toppo is Assistant Branch Manager of Allahabad bank. He has also corroborated the incident of bank robbery from the cash counter on 23.05.2000 at about 1:00 pm and on that day, Chief Manager was on leave. Three miscreants assaulted to the bank staffs and robbed Rs.6,70,420/-. Thereafter, the accused persons were fleeing from the bank premises. Meanwhile, siren of Bank was blown and outside the bank on the road, the accused persons were apprehended by the public. This witness also dashed the motorcycle of the accused persons. The looted cash was also recovered and handed over to the police. He has also went to the hospital along with the guard, Ram Pratap Mishra(P.W.1) where his fardbayan (Ext.1) was recorded. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his statement.
P.W.3-Jwala Prasad Arya @ Jawal Prasad Varnwal is the cashier in Allahabad Bank. He has also supported the Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) prosecution story that on 23.05.2000 at about 1-1:30 pm, three miscreants seized the bank guard snatching his gun and also assaulted him and thereafter committed robbery from the cash counter of Rs.6,70,420/-. He further deposed that the cash was recovered from the miscreants and the same was handed over to this witness on Jimanama. He has proved his signature on the memo of Jimanama. He has not identified any of the accused persons.
P.W.4- Ratan Prasad is a sweeper in Allahabad Bank and has also corroborated the incident of bank robbery. On 23.05.2000 at about 1:00 pm, when he was standing next to the counter, three miscreants entered into the bank and in the said incident, the guard was seized by the miscreants after snatching his gun. He further deposed that Toppo Sahab, Ram Pratap Mishra and Jwala Prasad Arya have sustained injuries in the said incident. He has not identified the accused persons behind the dock. To that point, he has been declared hostile and his attention has been drawn for recording his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C, which was denied by him by stating that he has not stated before the police that the apprehended three accused persons have disclosed their name and were apprehended with revolver and bullet.
P.W.5-Manoj Kumar is a peon of Allahabad Bank and he has also corroborated the prosecution story regarding bank Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) dacoity and assault given to the bank staffs and the guard and robbery of Rs.6,70,420/-. He has also identified the accused persons, who were apprehended near Fancy Dress Shop. The looted money was recovered from their possession and seizure list was also prepared. He has also proved his signature over it, which is marked as Ext.4 and signature of J.J. Minz as Ext.4/1. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.
P.W.6 Dharmendra Choudhary is Cashier in Allahabad Bank. According to his evidence on 23.05.2000 at about 1:30 pm, he was in a cash cabin and checking about any counterfeit currency note. Meanwhile, he heard hulla and came out from the cabin and saw that armguard was assaulted then he concealed himself below the chair of cash cabin because the accused persons were threatening to shot fire. Thereafter, the miscreants looted Rs.6,70,420/-. He has not identified any of the miscreants.
P.W.7- Jay John Minz is Assistant Manager in Allahabad Bank and he has also supported the prosecution story regarding bank robbery. He has also identified all the accused persons present behind the dock, who were apprehended with looted money and revolver just after commission of the robbery.
Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) This witness admits in cross-examination that no T.I. Parade was conducted after arrest of the accused persons because the accused persons were already identified when they were apprehended by the public and money was also recovered and they were assaulted by the public.
P.W.8-Arun Kumar Sharma is Special Assistant in Allahabad Bank. According to his evidence, on 23.05.2000 at about 1:00 pm, he was working as clearing officer. Meanwhile, he heard hulla and came out of the cabin and saw that 2-3 miscreants were snatching gun from the guard. Meanwhile, one of the miscreants threatened to this witness to kill him by shooting and another went towards cash counter and on the point of pistol, they robbed Rs.6,70,420/-. He has identified all the accused persons behind the dock.
P.W.9- Md. Kallu, who was the witness of seizure list, has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.10- Ajay Kumar Sinha is a local shop keeper near Allahabad Bank. He has also supported the prosecution story to the extent that he heard hulla and saw that some miscreants have committed bank robbery and he also saw that the accused persons were trying to flee away on a motorcycle but they were chased and apprehended. Meanwhile, the police also arrived and the miscreants were taken away. He said nothing about the occurrence.
Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) P.W.11 I.O., Ram Lochan Tiwary was the officer-in- charge. He received telephonic message at about 13-14 hours on 23.05.2000 that some miscreants are committing dacoity in Allahabad Bank near Kalibari. He along with other police personnels went there and near Kalibari Kachhari road, he found a mob assaulting three miscreants. He took the apprehended persons in his possession from public and they disclosed their names as Arvind Kumar, Shambhu Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Pandey. On personal search, one firearm and live cartridges were recovered from the pocket of two miscreants and they were brought to Sadar Hospital for treatment, where bank staffs, Sushil Kumar Toppo and Assistant Manager were also present. He recorded the fardbayan of Sushil Kumar Toppo (Ext.6). He has further proved the endorsement over the fardbayan Ext.7, signature and writing of literate constable, Lalan Singh on formal F.I.R. as Ext.8 and identified his signature on Formal FIR as Ext.9. He recorded the statement of witnesses and other staffs of the bank and also visited the place of occurrence and also prepared seizure list of fired pellets Ext.10 and the bag containing looted cash Rs.6,70,420/-, which was also produced by cashier Jwala Prasad Arya and seizure list was prepared marked as Ext.11. The motorcycle used by the miscreants bearing No. BR-21A-0367 also seized in presence of witnesses Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) on which signature of Ram Suresh Singh is there and also his signature is there, which is marked as Ext.12. He has also interrogated with neighbouring shop keepers and finding sufficient evidence against all the accused persons submitted charge-sheet.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the seized arm has not been produced in this case because a separate case under Arms Act bearing Giridih(T) P.S. Case No.103 of 2000 has been registered against the accused persons. There is nothing else in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony.
The Court has also examined a court witness, Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, who has medically examined Mr. Jwala Prasad Arya (P.W.3) and found following injuries on his persons:-
(i) Swelling right side of the face 2" below the lower eyelid 1/2" in diameter
(ii) Swelling 1/2" in diameter occipital area
(ii) Abrasion right side of the face 1/4" x ¼ red in colour
(iv) Complain of body ache This witness has opined that the age of injury within six hours and the nature of injury Nos. (i) to (iii) are simple caused by hard blunt substance. He has proved this injury report marked as Ext.13.
Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) Further, this court witness has also examined Mr. Jay John Minz and found following injuries:
(i) Bruise over left scapular area 3" x 1/4 " red in colour
(ii) Abrasion 1" x 1/4" red in colour over left side of the cheek.
He has opined that the age of injury within six hours and nature of injury Nos. (i) and (ii) are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved this injury report, which is marked as Ext.13/1.
17. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, there appears no doubt regarding commission of Bank robbery by the appellants. The defence taken by the appellants does not appear to be convincing, they have been caught red handed along with looted cash from the bank. Therefore, there appears no valid reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants.
18. So far alternative plea of the appellants is concerned, they have remained more than 4 years imprisonment each during pendency of trial. This appeal is of the year, 2000 more than two decades have been lapsed. The appellants have mended themselves and not involved in any other case rather joined the main stream of life. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB ) appellants may be reduced to the extent of imprisonment already undergone.
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by the appellants, their age, antecedent and other mitigating circumstances, it appears expedient in the ends of justice that the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice for their guilt. Therefore, conviction of appellants is maintained but sentence awarded to them by the learned trial court is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.
20. The appellants are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged.
21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
23. We take this opportunity to appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, learned Amicus Curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:29268-DB )
24. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date:22 /09/2025 Pappu/- N.A.F.R. Cr. A (S.J.) No.740 of 2002 18