Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin @ Pappu And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.783 OF 2011
(1) Vipin @ Pappu S/o Dharamnath Sharma
Age 22 years, Permanent Address: Jagdishpur,
Thana Jagdishpur, District-Aara (Bihar)
Address-Ramrahim Colony, Rau,
District - Indore (MP)
(2) Santosh S/o Manoj Kumar Lahore,
Age-22 years, Occupation-Service
R/o Village - Amona Thana, Industrial Area, Dewas,
District-Dewas (MP)
Current Address- Ramrahim Colony, Rau,
District-Indore (MP)
(3) Gaurav @ Goldi S/o Sundarlal Jaiswal,
Age-29 years, Occupation-Hotel
Permanent Address.-Village-Bagrodh,
Thana-Namli, District-Ratlam (MP)
Current Address.-12/2, Ramrahim Colony, Rau,
District-Indore (MP)
....Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police-Station - Chandan Nagar,
District - Indore (MP)
....Respondent
And
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.487 OF 2011
Vijesh @ Brajesh S/o Dhannalal Raghuwanshi
Age-28 years, Occupation-Labour
Resident of 99/6, Nandbihar Colony,
Narmada Road, Rau,
District - Indore (MP)
....Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Police-Station - Chandan Nagar,
District - Indore (MP)
....Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the appellants No.1 and 2
in Cr.A. No.783 of 2011.
Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant No.3
Gourav @ Goldi in Cr.A. No.783 of 2011 and for appellant
Vijesh @ Brajesh in Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2011.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned counsel for the
respondent /State of Madhya Pradesh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 23rd day of October 2021) Per Shailendra Shukla, J.
These appeals under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been preferred aggrieved with judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge No.6, Indore (M.P.) in Session Trial No.228/2009, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence Fine Imprisonment in
lieu of payment of
fine
u/S. 395 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- each 03 Months RI
2. The prosecution story in nutshell was that on 19.05.2008, SHO Chandan Nagar, Indore namely Daulat Singh while on patrolling duty received an information from Police Control Room that there has been a loot incident at Navdapanth Branch of State Bank of Indore situated at Chandan Nagar, Indore. Daulat Singh arrived at the spot and started investigation. The head cashier of the bank namely Ramawtar lodged a dehati nalishi report stating that while he was working 3 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 at about 2:15 pm at the cash counter, two miscreants arrived at his counter and started assaulting Bank Security Guard namely Govind Singh Bhuria and snatched his rifle from him and held firearm against the temple of the head cashier and looted currency notes placed at the counter. The miscreants then threatened the bank customers with firearms pointed at them and after committing loot they all escaped on their motorcycles. It was later found that the total amount which has been looted was Rs.3,47,810/-. Along with the looted amount, some bank seals and documents had also been carried away by them. The head cashier described the physical characteristics of the looters and claimed to identify them if they were caught. On the basis of dehati nalishi report, FIR was lodged and investigation further ensued. Thereafter the spot map was also prepared. The blood splattered on the floor was collected and seized as a result of injury to bank security guard Govind Bhuria.
3. On 11.09.2008, the accused were arrested in connection with Crime No.646/2008 registered at Police-Station- Bhanwarkuan, Indore. On interrogation, the accused admitted to have committed the offence in the present case. On the basis of their memorandum, the looted currency notes, bank documents and bank seals, deposit slips and slips showing counted notes and withdrawal forms etc were seized. The 4 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 appellants/accused were subjected to identification parade. Four witnesses were made to identify the appellants only and one of these witnesses have identified all the appellants whereas others identified some of them. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against five accused including the appellants before the JMFC Indore who committed the matter to Sessions Judge, Indore.
4. The trial Court framed charges under Section 395 and 397 of IPC against all the four accused persons/appellants, while charge under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 was framed against appellants Gaurav @ Goldi and Vijesh @ Brajesh. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to have been implicated falsely. No evidence in defense was submitted in support.
5. The prosecution examined as many as eighteen witnesses in support. They included bank employees and customers. The bank employees who have been examined are Ramawtar (PW/2), Shrikant Patidar (PW/3), Jagjit Kaur (PW/4), Bank Security Guard Govind Bhuria (PW/5) and Mahendra (PW/11) and the bank customers are Ramchandra (PW/9) and Santosh (PW/13). The fifth accused namely Manoj, however died during the course of the trial.
5 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
6. Dr. T.S. Hora (PW/7) and Dr. Shabbir Ahmed Khan (PW/6) had examined the bank security guard Govind Bhuria. Mr. Alok Pare (PW/12) is the Tehsildar who had conducted the identification parade. The prosecution also examined Pratap Singh Ranawat (PW/14) who was the SHO of Bhanwarkuan Police-Station and arrested the accused/appellants in Crime No.646/2008. Daulat Singh (PW/15) has also been examined who has recorded the dehati nalishi report. The other witnesses are the witnesses of seizure and memorandum. Mr. S.B. Singh Rathore (PW/8) has lodged the FIR (Ex.P/17) on the basis of dehati nalishi report.
7. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 395 of IPC, while charge under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act was not found proved against them.
8. In the appeal which has been preferred by the appellants, it has been stated that all the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have turned hostile, that the evidence of witnesses of test identification parade contained inconsistencies and contradictions, that as against four accused were involved in the offence, Jagjit Kaur (PW/4) has stated that she has identified five persons, that the manner of conducting the 6 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 identification parade has carried out many inadequacies rendering the same unreliable, that the bank documents and bank seals stating to have been seized from the appellants were in fact planted upon the appellants by Investigating Officer so as to strengthen the prosecution case which is based majorly on circumstantial evidence. On these grounds, these appeals have been sought to be allowed.
9. The main question before us is whether in view of the grounds contained in the appeals and oral submissions made on behalf of these appellants, the appellants deserve to be acquitted ?
10. Daulat Singh (PW/15), SHO Police-Station-Chandan Nagar, Indore has stated that on 19.05.2008 while he was on patrolling duty, he received an information through wireless from Police Control Room regarding loot committed at Navdapanth Branch of State Bank of Indore, he immediately made arrangements of police force in order to capture the fleeing culprits and had arrived at the spot where the head cashier Ramavatar (PW/2) used to sit and on the basis of his statements, Ex.P/12 was recorded and carried out further investigation such as collecting the evidence of injured bank security guard Govind Bhuria vide Ex.P/13 and prepared the spot map Ex.P/24. On the basis of his dehati nalishi report, FIR 7 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 Ex.P/17 was registered and the statement of witness was recorded by him. This witness has stated that later on when he received information from police-station Bhanwarkuan regarding arrest of appellants who were suspected to be involved in the present case. The witness has stated that he, after obtaining the permission from the Court, obtained the custody of appellants and interrogated them and recorded their memorandum statements which is Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5 and thereafter recovered the different items of loot and the vehicle used in looting from the accused as per Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9.
11. As far as the incident of loot is concerned, all the employees of the bank have given the evidence in support of the prosecution story. Ramawtar (PW/2) has stated that while he was working as head cashier at about 2:15 pm, some noise came from behind his cabin and he saw one miscreant having pistol in his hand had assaulted the bank security guard Govind Bhuria and at that relevant point of time, two persons/miscreants having pistols in their hands had entered his cabin and took out the money from the drawer of his table. This amount was Rs.3,47,810/-. This amount was filled up in a cloth bag and the looters were seen to be escaping in a discover motorcycle. These statements have not been controverted in the cross-examination.
8 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
12. Govind Bhuria (PW/5) has stated that on the date of incident, while he was guarding the bank and was near the channel gate, he found a person covering face with a cloth/handkerchief near the channel gate and was told by the witness to enter the gate only after removing the cloth from his face. The person nodded and moved his hands showing as if he was about to remove the handkerchief but instead he immediately lunged at the witness to wrest control of rifle of him. Both got entangled and at that moment of time, another miscreant came with his face covered in handkerchief and he caught hold of the witness from behind and started assaulting him with a butt of Katta (firearm) and despite the aforesaid assault when they could not snatch the rifle from the security guard they took the witness (guard) behind the cash counter and started assaulting him with the butt of rifle (firearm) rendering him unconscious and snatched his rifle and thereafter they escaped from the bank after looting the money.
13. This witness has been examined by two Doctors. The security guard Govind Bhuria (PW/5) has been examined by Dr. Shabbir Khan (PW/6) and Dr. T.S. Hora (PW/7). Dr. Shabbir Khan (PW/6) has stated that he was the medical practitioner and injured Govind was brought to him and on seeing his condition, he was referred to Suyash Hospital for CT-SCAN 9 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 and on 06.06.2009, he had been given the fitness certificate when Govind was found to have become fit.
14. Doctor T.S. Hora (PW/7) has stated that on 19.05.2008 while he was working as CHMO at District Hospital at Indore, he had examined injured Govind Singh Bhuria (PW/5) and found to have suffered injuries which were as follows:
(i) swelling in right hand having pain.
(ii) small abrasions on middle and forefinger of right hand.
(iii) contused lacerated wound below right ear 2x1/2 cm.
(iv) linear incised wound on the right side of face1cm x5cm x skindeep.
(v) linear incised wound on the left palm 1.5cm x skindeep.
(vi) linear incised wound 0.5 cm long above on the left eye-brow as also on forearm.
15. As per the witness, injuries no.3 to 6 were caused by light object and injuries no.1 was caused by hard and blunt object within twelve hours of the incident. Thus no injury on the head of security guard has been found to have been caused as per the Doctor. Contrary to statement of injured Govind Bhuria, the duration of injury was within the period as per the prosecution story and the evidence of Govind Bhuriya (PW/5) has not been controverted in cross-examination. The act of assault upon him has been witnessed by Ramawtar (PW/2). Ramchandra (PW/9) and other eye-witnesses such as Jagjit Kaur (PW/4) and Mahendra (PW/11).
10 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
16. All the aforesaid eye-witnesses who have given statements regarding committal of loot from the bank on 19.05.2008 have not been challenged in the cross- examination, hence it is found proved that the incident of loot had in fact committed by the looters and the looted amount kept in the drawer of the cash counter had also been looted by the looters after overpowering the security guard and also by assaulting him.
17. The question now is of identification of the looters.
18. Ramawtar (PW/2) has stated that all the looters were between 20 - 25 years of age and their physical attributes were similar to that of appellants. The witness further states that all the looters had covered their faces with the clothes at the time of incident. He states that he had identified the appellants vide Ex.P/14 (Identification Memo).
19. Govind Bhuria (PW/5) has stated that he had seen two miscreants who were between 21 to 25 years of age and has stated that he had identified the appellants Vipin, Manoj and Santosh in the jail and the identification proceedings were recorded vide Ex.P/14 bearing his signatures from 'D to D' part.
20. The other witnesses of identification of appellants are Shrikant Patidar (PW/3) who was employed as Computer Operator in the Branch and Jagjit Kaur (PW/4) who was 11 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 working as Manager in the Branch on the date of incident. The signatures of both these witnesses on identification memo document is Ex.P/14 are from 'D to D' and 'C to C' part respectively.
21. Shrikant Patidar (PW/3) has stated that all the accused had covered their faces from the handkerchief at the time of incident and therefore he cannot state for sure that the appellants were the same person, however he could identify two or three of these persons at the time of identification parade.
22. Jagjit Kaur (PW/4) has further stated that the appellants who were present at the time of recording of evidence were definitely the same persons who had committed the offence. In para 7, she has stated that she was able to identify the accused from their characteristics.
23. The question which arises is what is the amount which has been looted from the Bank.
24. Ramawtar (PW-2) has stated that there were Rs.3,47,810/- in the drawer which were looted by the miscreants. In Ex.P/12 which is the Dehati Nalishi report recorded just half an hour after the incident, the same amount has been disclosed. These statements of Ramawtar (PW-2) have not been contradicted in cross-examination. Daulat Singh 12 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 (PW-15) who is the S.I. has, however, stated that he had received a letter on 21.5.2008 from State Bank of Indore, in which the final figure of the looted cash was shown as Rs.3,61,580/-. The aforesaid letter is Ex.P/25. In the aforesaid letter it has been stated that earlier in the FIR an amount of Rs.3,47,810/- was mentioned, however in the evening when cash was finally counted, the amount which was missing, was found to be Rs.3,61,580/-. Hence this was the final amount. The accountant who was employed in the Bank and who was responsible for maintaining the account of deposits and withdrawals, has not been examined.
25. Mahendra (PW-11) has stated that at the time of the incident he was working as temporary Peon in the Bank and was tying up the bundles of the currency notes and he was having a bundle of notes totalling Rs.1 Lakh, which was snatched from him by the miscreants and apart from that the money kept in the counter was also taken away. The money which has ultimately been recovered from the accused persons is much less than the alleged looted amount. Hence, it cannot be stated exactly as to what was the amount which was looted. However, there is no denying the fact that the loot had occurred in the Bank and the miscreants had looted the amount which was kept in the cash counter.
13 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
26. Now the main question is, whether the appellants were the persons who had committed the aforesaid loot?
27. All the witnesses have stated that the looters had covered their faces with handkerchief. In the Dehati Nalishi report which is Ex.P/12, however it has not been mentioned that the looters had their faces covered. In the same, it has been mentioned by the informant that the looters would be identified if they are shown to the informant. However, the same informant Ramawtar (PW-2) has stated in his evidence that all the accused persons had their faces covered.
28. As already stated, other witnesses have also deposed in similar manner. Some of these witnesses have, however, stated that they could identify on the basis of their physical characteristics. The witnesses of identification are Ramawtar (PW-2), Jagjit Kaur (PW-4), Govind Bhuriya (PW-5), Shrikant Patidar (PW-3) and Mahendra (PW-11). The appellants have been subjected to identification by the Naib Tehsildar Shri Alok Pare (PW-12). The witness Alok Pare (PW-12) has exhibited identification memo as Ex.P/14 and states that while Jagjit Kaur (PW-4) had identified all the appellants, the rest of the persons could identify few of them. Deceased accused Manoj has been identified by all the witnesses. Appellant Vipin has been identified by Ramawtar, Jagjit Kaur, Shrikant Patidar and 14 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 Mahendra. Appellant Santosh has been identified by Govind Bhuriya, Jagjit Kaur and Mahendra. Appellant Brajesh has been identified by only two persons namely Jagjit Kaur and Shrikant Patidar, whereas appellant Gaurav @ Goldi has been identified by Ramawtar and Jagjit Kaur. Thus, one can see that apart from Jagjit Kaur (PW-4), other witnesses have identified fewer appellants and the persons identified by these persons are also not same. As far as Jagjit Kaur (PW-4) is concerned, she was the Manager of the Bank at the time of the incident and she states in Para-7 that she had identified the accused from their physical characteristics such as their height, shoulder, forehead, eyes and hairs. She also states in Para-10 that one of the factors for identification was the expression of fear on the faces of the accused.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that different persons may have similar physical attributes and, therefore, identification only on the basis of physical attributes would always be susceptible to doubt, specially when it has been admitted that the faces of looters were covered at the time of incident.
30. Considered.
31. There is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants.
15 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
32. As far as identification of accused on the basis of expression of fear on their faces is concerned, the aforesaid manner of identification can also not considered to be appropriate because a person who was not involved may develop expression of fear thinking that he may wrongly be identified.
33. Mahendra (PW-11) has although stated that he identified three of the accused persons but in Para-8 he admits that he cannot state for sure that the appellants who had appeared at the time of deposition were the same persons, whom he had identified. He also admits that in the identification memo when he had appended his signatures, the memo was blank. Govind Bhuriya (PW-5) who is another witness of identification, has stated in Para-6 that all the persons who had appeared in the identification parade were different in terms of their physical attributes, while some were dark coloured, some were fair in colour, some had spiked hair.
34. A reliable identification proceedings would be such when persons of similar body built are made to appear in the identification proceedings. However, if persons of varying physical attributes are made to appear in the identification proceedings, the same shall become tainted and identification through such proceedings would always be unreliable. 16 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
35. The officer conducting identification proceeding i.e. Alok Pare (PW-12) has admitted in Para-20 that although the proceedings (Ex.P/14) contains the name and signatures of the accused in column 5, however the names and signatures of persons other than the accused have not been obtained in column 6. He also admits that there is no mention of physical attributes in column 6 of Ex.P/14. He states that all the accused and other persons were made to stand behind a blanket so that only their faces could be seen. One fails to understand that if the accused could have been identified only by their physical attributes excepting their faces, then why their bodies were not shown to the identifying witnesses. In the given circumstances, the appropriate manner would have been to cover the faces of all the accused and other persons and then subject them to identification without covering their rest of the bodies. However, the officer adopted the usual manner which would be totally illogical in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, one can see that the identification proceedings were not carried out properly. This apart, looking to the evidence of witnesses as also the factum of different witnesses identifying different accused persons, would also render the identification proceedings to be unreliable. 17 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
36. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn Court's attention to certain citations in the case of Debasish Sarkar Vs. The State of Tripura [2012 Cri.L.J. 418], Girdhari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2012 Cri.L.J. 984], Noorahammad and others Vs. State of Karnataka [2016 Cri.L.J. 1232] and Hari Nath and another Vs. State of U.P. [1988 Cri.L.J. 422]. These citations pertain to the fact that inappropriate conduction of identification proceedings would render such proceedings unreliable.
37. Now, the other substantial pieces of evidence sought to be proved against the appellants would be considered.
38. The aforesaid evidence is pertaining to recovery of currency notes and deposit slips, seal, note counted slips from the possession of appellants. S.I. Daulat Singh (PW-15) has stated that after the incident occurring on 19.5.2008, he went to Police Station Bhanvarkua on 22.9.2008, where the appellants had been arrested in Crime No.646/2008 registered at Bhanvarkua Police Station. He states that after obtaining the permission of the court, he arrested appellant Vipin Sharma vide arrest memo Ex.P/27, Manoj Singh vide Ex.P/28, Brajesh Raghuvanshi vide Ex.P/29, Santosh Lahore vide Ex.P/30 and Gaurav @ Goldi vide Ex.P/31. He further states that on the same day he had obtained the memorandum statements of 18 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 these appellants. Appellant Gaurav vide Ex.P/1, appellant Santosh vide Ex.P/2, appellant Vipin Sharma vide Ex.P/3, appellant Manoj Singh vide Ex.P/4 and appellant Brajesh vide Ex.P/5 had given their memorandum statements, on the basis of which seizure of various incriminating items were made vide seizure memos from Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/11. He states that from Gaurav @ Goldi a motorcycle bearing registration number MP09-MJ-7408 was seized from the house of one Kaluram situated at Rau, District Indore. This apart a square shaped Bank seal and 12 deposit slips were seized from the house of Gaurav situated at Ram Rahim Colony at Rau. The witness further states that from the house of accused Manoj Singh (deceased) a square shaped wooden seal, 40 withdrawal forms and cash payment seal were seized from his residence situated at Sai Sagar Colony at Rau. From Vipin @ Pappu a diary of State Bank of Indore was seized vide Ex.P/9. From appellant Santosh note counted slips and a round seal was seized. On the note counted slips there were impression of seal bearing Navda Panth Branch No.3253 and such slips were stacked together in a bundle with brown colour cover covering these bundles. From Brajesh a wooden rounded seal and note counted 44 slips were seized. The independent witnesses of these memoranda and seizure memos are Shakir 19 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 (PW-1) and Firoz (PW-18). Both the witnesses have, however, turned hostile.
39. Witness Daulat Singh (PW-15) denies the suggestion that the appellants have been falsely implicated and the various seals and deposit slips etc. were procured by the witness from the Bank employees and were implanted upon the accused persons. This suggestion has been denied by the witness.
40. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a person looting cash from the Bank would never leave a trail behind by carrying away with him any other banking articles such as seal, slips etc. because the same would become an evidence against such miscreant, therefore, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the slips and seals etc. were implanted upon the accused persons by the investigating agency.
41. Considered the aforesaid argument.
42. In Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/12) which was recorded barely half an hour after the incident, there is a mention that apart from the cash which has been looted, the looters had also carried away the seals and bank documents. Thus, it does not appear to be an afterthought on the part of investigating officer to implant the aforesaid material on accused persons. The purpose of taking away the seal and note counted slips appears to be to obliterate the evidence of deposition of such 20 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 currency notes in the Bank on the date of the incident. It appears that the looters had stashed currency notes and other items from the cash counter in a jiffy and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances recovery of seals and deposit slips etc. does not by itself show implantation of these articles upon the appellants.
43. The appellants have been shown to be habitual offenders having committed the similar Bank loot at Indore in a branch of State Bank of India in the month of September, 2008 i.e. barely four months after the present case. In the aforesaid case also charges have been found proved against the appellants.
44. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the appellants being emboldened by the fact that the present case could not be cracked by the investigating agencies, they dared to commit similar offence four months later, however their luck ran dry and they were apprehended.
45. On due consideration of the evidence available on record, it is found proved that the Bank seals and Bank documents which were missing as per Ex.P/12 were recovered from the possession of the appellants on the basis of their memorandum and seizure memo and no proper explanation has been given by the appellants as to how they came in possession of these articles.
21 CRA Nos.783-487/2011
46. The recovery of the aforesaid articles apart, the looted currency has also been seized from the accused and in this regard the evidence of Pratap Singh Ranawat (PW-14) is of relevance. This witness has stated that from accused Santosh, Brajesh and Gourav @ Goldi, currency notes in bundles of denominations of Rs.100/- each were recovered vide Ex.P/19, P/20 & P/22. From Santosh Rs.20,000/-, from Brajesh Rs.28,000/- and from Gourav @ Goldi Rs.30,000/- were recovered. The witness has stated that the aforesaid amount was recovered on the basis of their memorandum statements. The independent witnesses of memorandum are Vinod (PW-
10) and Mohd. Aslam (PW-17). Both these witnesses have, however, turned hostile and the only witness of recovery of money from these appellants is the SHO Pratap Singh Ranawat (PW-14). This witness states in Para-4 that the accused were already under arrest in respect of the case registered at Police Station Bhanvarkua and it was during their interrogation that they revealed their involvement in the present case also and later on IO from Chandan Nagar Police Station obtained their arrest. The prosecution has not produced the specific memorandum of the appellants regarding the exact amount which came in each appellant's share. Earlier memorandum of these appellants which are recorded as per 22 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 Ex.P/1 to P/5, only fleetingly referred to the looted amount but such memorandums concentrate more upon the seals and the banking documents. It appears that it may be that regarding the aforesaid looted amount, separate memorandum may have been given by the appellants to Pratap Singh Ranawat (PW-
14), however such memorandum if at all were recorded, have not been produced for perusal. The sum total of the amount recovered from the accused is lesser than 1/3rd of the amount allegedly looted. However, it has been found proved that the amount which has been recovered from these appellants were in bundles of Rs.100/- notes and generally such bundles can be in possession of only such persons who have done banking transaction or commercial transaction and the appellants have not shown to have done either of them. Thus, appellants have failed to explain as to how they came in possession of such substantial amount of money. Thus it is found proved that apart from the recovery of Bank seals and banking documents, the bundles of currency notes in denominations of Rs.100/- were recovered from the appellants and the appellants have failed to provide plausible explanation for the same. It is this piece of circumstantial evidence which conclusively points at guilt of the appellants. It is thus conclusively found proved that appellants had committed the loot in the Bank and in the process had 23 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 assaulted the bank's security guard Govind Bhuriya (PW-5).
47. There has been an uncertainty in the number of persons involved in committing the loot. While Jagjit Kaur (PW-4) has stated that apart from three persons who were assaulting the guard, two other accused persons were there; one of whom was stationed at the gate and the other who was wielding a pistol, had asked her to keep quiet. On the other hand Santosh (PW-13) has stated that there were four persons only. Ramchandra (PW-9) also states that there were 3 to 4 persons. The prosecution during the course of investigation has found evidence against the 5th person i.e. Manoj and has seized incriminating articles and currency notes from him as well.
48. Daulat Singh (PW-15) has stated that on the basis of information given by accused Manoj Singh (deceased), one square wooden seal carrying impression of "State Bank of Indore, Branch Manager, Navda Panth, District Indore" was recovered along with 40 withdrawal forms bearing seal of Navda Panth State Bank, which also carried the code number of the Bank vide seizure memo Ex.P/8.
49. Manoj, however, died during the course of trial and the evidence against him has remained unrebutted. Hence the evidence of Jagjit Kaur (PW-4) that five persons had committed the loot, stands corroborated by the aforesaid circumstantial 24 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 evidence of seizure of currency and banking documents and other articles from Manoj. Thus, it is found proved that the appellants had committed dacoity and, therefore, they were rightly been convicted under Section 395 of IPC.
50. Adverting to the quantum of sentence, the facts reveal professional manner in which the banking institution was subjected to threat and loot was committed putting the lives of scores of persons at risk on gun points. The sense of insecurity and fear which must have gripped the banking staff, cannot be considered to be limited for that particular day but would obviously be haunting them for rest of their carrier, as their duties required them to deal with money transactions and handling of currency on daily basis. Such incidences have cascading effect on security concerns of banking employees in other banking institutions, whether private or public. Financial institutions need to be insulated from any such misadventures on the part of rogue elements, as the health of the financial institutions and consequently the economic robustness of the State depends upon their unhindered functionality without being bogged down by acts of daredevilry as exhibited by the appellants in the present case. Ensuring secure and safe environment in financial institutions is must for their smooth functioning, in particular and economic well being of the country 25 CRA Nos.783-487/2011 in general. Not only the security concerns of banking staff but that of the customers also has been impacted by the act of the appellants. The appellants have been convicted for the similar bank dacoity in another matter i.e. S.T. No.830/08. Thus, no case of leniency is made out.
51. Consequently, the sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial Court is also affirmed.
52. The appeals on the point of conviction and sentence stand dismissed in aforesaid terms.
53. A copy of this judgment along with record of trial Court be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
54. The disposal of the property shall be as per the order of trial Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Arun/-
Digitally signed by
ARUN NAIR
Date: 2021.10.23
18:21:36 +05'30'