Delhi High Court
Shree Bhagwan And Surinder vs State on 23 July, 2007
Author: P.K. Bhasin
Bench: R.S. Sodhi, P.K. Bhasin
JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.
1. In this appeal the two appellants have challenged their conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 392/397/34 and 302/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act vide judgment dated 29-04-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 107/97/88.
2. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the trial Court in its judgment is as follows:
That on 27-5-1986 K. Raj Kumar(PW-2) had left the office of State Bank of Mysore, Connaught Place at about 8.30 p.m. Dayachand and Vikram Singh were the chowkidars. On 28-5-1986 K. Raj Kumar (PW-2) and other bank officials reached the bank at about 9.50 a.m. The collapsible gril gate of the bank was found locked with the help of a chian. Since none of the chowkidars was found, therefore, the chain was got cut with the help of hacksaw blade. When the bank officials, including K. Raj Kumar (PW-2) entered in the bank, it was found that a robbery had taken place. The dead bodies of Daya Chand and Vikram Singh were found. The strong room was found to have a hole. The almirahs were lying open. Currency notes, gold, foreign travelers cheques were found missing. Police officers were informed. K. Raj Kumar (PW-2) then made a statement Ex. PW-2/A hich was sent to the Police Station and FIR bearing No. 411/86 was registered in the Police Station. From the place of occurrence a number of articles such as the registers Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2, bundles of bidies Ex. P-10 and P-11, match box Ex. P-12 were taken into possession. Chance finger prints were also lifted from various places inside the bank including the registers. The police could not make any head way in the case. On 21.9.87 SI Bal Kishan, SI Om Parkash, ASI V.N. Jha, HC Dharampal, Const. Ashok Kumar, Const. Ved Prakash, Const. Priya Vrat, Const. Siri Kishan, Const. Rajbir and Const. Isdhwar Singh were checking the vehicles at Tikri border. At about 10.10 p.m. a maruti van bearing No. DDA 8910 was found coming from the side of Haryana. The police officials gave signal to the driver. However instead of stopping the van, the driver accelerated the speed. The van was chased by the police officials. Messages were flashed to the PCR. Ultimately, after a long chase, this van was surrounded and intercepted on road No. 29, near Gandha Nala, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi. The accused, who are facing trial, finding themselves to have been surrounded by the police officials, then left the van and started fleeing away. They were over powered by the police officials. Accused Shree Bhagwan was apprehended by SI Bal Kishan, Const. Priyavrat, Const. Ved Prakash and Head Constable Dharampal. SI Om Prakash, AIS V.N. Jha, HC Ashok Kumar apprehended accused Surender. From their possession country made revolvers and live cartridges were recovered. For the possession of the country made revolver and live cartridges separate cases were got registered against these two accused. Both the accused were then interrogated. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex. PW-22/1 accused Shree Bhagwan led the polie party to his village and got recovered the currency notes and jewellery items. Accused Surender in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW-23/4 lead the police party to this house and got recovered currency notes and a sabbal/crowbar (an iron rod used by the labourers to pick the stones). The specimen finger prints of the accused were also taken. The questioned finger prints which had been taken by the Expert(PW-34) from the scene of crime and the specimen fingerprints of accused Shree Bhagwan had tallied. After completion of investigation both the accused were challaned.
3. In respect of recoveries of kattas and cartridges recovered from the possession of the two appellants-accused, two separate FIRs were registered under Section 25 of the Arms Act (being FIR No. 439/87 and 440/87) at Punjabi Bagh Police Station. In due course three separate charge-sheets were filed in Court by police one of which was in respect of the incident of bank robbery and the other two were in respect of the two cases under the Arms Act against both the appellants herein. Finally all the three charge sheets came to be committed to Sessions Court to be dealt with by one court material witnesses were common. In the Sessions Court all the three cases were clubbed with the consent of both the sides and evidence was recorded in the main case of robbery-cum- murder to be read for all the three cases. The prosecution had examined thirty five witnesses in support of its case against the two accused persons. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. both the accused denied the prosecution case in its entirety and pleaded false implication. They also adduced two witnesses in each their defense to show that both of them had not been arrested on 21/22.9.87 but in fact had actually been lifted from their houses on 16/17.9.87 when their houses were also searched by the police and had not found anything incriminating during those searches. After hearing learned Counsel for both the accused persons and considering the prosecution as well as defense evidence learned trial Court convicted both the accused persons for the offences for which they were charged. And the order on sentence dated 7-5-2003 whereby both the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of which they were further sentenced to six months? rigorous imprisonment under Sections 302 and 460 IPC each. They were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 392/397/34 IPC besides sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each in default of payment of which they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Feeling aggrieved, the convicted accused persons have come up in appeal.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned additional public prosecutor for the State and with their assistance we have also gone through the evidence adduced by both the sides.
5. In this case the two appellants have been held guilty for the offence of robbery as also for killing two chowkidars of the bank while committing robbery. It was not disputed on behalf of the appellants before us that there was a robbery in the State Bank of Mysore?s Branch in Connaught Place, New Delhi on the night of 27/28.5.86 and also that the death of two chowkidars of the Bank was homicidal. These facts are even otherwise fully established from the evidence of the Bank?s Manager (PW-2) K. Rajkumar on whose complaint the FIR of this case was registered. PW-2 K. Rajkumar had deposed that on the day of the incident he was Manager of the Connaught Place branch of State Bank of Mysore. He was in the bank till about 8.30 p.m. on 27-5-86 and at that time the deceased Daya Chand was on duty as Chowkidar. His duty hours were from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. and further that at 10 p.m. the deceased Vikram Singh was also to join him on duty. He further deposed that on that night both Daya Chand and Vikram Singh Bhandari were on duty as chowkidars in the aforesaid branch of the bank. On 28- 5-86 he reached the bank at about 9.50 a.m. and found that the collapsible grill gate of the bank was locked and bank officials were present outside the bank. They broke open the chain with which the gate was locked and on entering the bank premises they saw water spread over the floor and he got suspicious and then he went to the strong room where he noticed a hole in the wall of the strong room. He also noticed some blood stains on the floor near the strong room and thereafter he went to the mezzanine floor and saw the two chowkidars Daya Chand and Vikram Singh Bhandari lying dead there with their hands and legs tied with a telephone wire and their faces were covered with cloth like things and account books and vouchers etc. had been put over their bodies. This witness further deposed that there were three Godrej almirahs in the strong room out of which one was lying down near the place where there was a hole in the wall of the strong room and other two almirahs were lying open and it appeared that they had been opened forcibly. He further deposed that currency notes, jewellery items and travellers? cheques, foreign currency etc. were found missing from the almirahs. He also deposed that when police came there he gave his statement Ex. PW-2/A and that the police had taken finger prints from various places in the bank and finger impressions of all the staff members were also taken. This witness also deposed that during test identification parade he had identified some currency notes which belonged to his bank. He had also claimed that total Indian currency of the value of Rs. 9,64,451.23, foreign currency of the value of Rs. 52,039.70 and gold jewellery worth Rs. 84,167.30 had been stolen away from the bank and the police had been informed about that by him on checking vide his report Ex. PW-2/DD. There was no cross-examination of this witness regarding the incident of robbery and the recovery of two dead bodies of the bank?s chowkidars from inside the bank premises. It was also not challenged in cross-examination that no incident of robbery had taken place in the State Bank of Mysore?s branch in the Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi as deposed by him. So, from the evidence of PW-2 it is clearly established that there was an incident of robbery in the night of 27/28-5-96 in the Connaught Place Branch of State Bank of Mysore and on the same night the two chowkidars on duty in that branch had been murdered inside the bank premises and recovery of their bodies from inside the bank premises also establishes that both of them were killed by the robbers while committing robbery.
6. As far as the fact that the two chowkidars of the bank had died homicidal death is concerned, we have the testimony of the autopsy surgeon (PW-17) Dr. Bharat Singh and his post-mortem reports. When the two dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem examination the autopsy surgeon Dr. Bharat Singh had noticed multiple injuries on the dead bodies of the two deceased and which find mention in the post-mortem reports prepared by him in respect of which nothing was contended during the course of arguments on behalf of any of the two appellants. The injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased Daya Chand were as under:
1. On lacerated wound on the left parietal area of the skull, size X 2.10 x scalp deep. It was covered with clotted blood surrounding skull hair was also covered with blood.
2. Lacerated wound on a left mastoid area size" x 2.10" bone deep.
3. Lacerated wound over left ear size 1" x" x through and through.
4. Lacerated wound on the middle of skull size 1" x" x scalp deep.
5. Lacerated wound on right parietal area size 2" x" x scalp deep.
6. Lacerated wound on the left side forehead size 1" x 1.10" x muscle deep.
7. Abrasion right side forehead size" x".
8. Abrasion right side face size" x".
9. Ligature mark around the neck placed in the middle area" wide, base was depressed and colour was light brown.
10. Abrasion on the back of right side shoulder size 2" x".
11. Abrasion on the back of right elbow size 2" x 2".
12. Multiple scattered abrasions on the back of right fore-arm.
13. Abrasion on the left fore-arm and hand.
14. Abrasion in the inter-scapular area 1" x".
15. Ligature impression on the outer side of both ankles.
16. Bluish ecchymosis around both eyes.
All these injuries were found to be ante-mortem and injuries No. 1,2,4,5 and 6 were opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death of the deceased Daya Chand opined to be coma resulting from head injury. The injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased Vikram Singh Bhandari are as follows:
1. One lacerated wound on the right side parietal eminence placed obliquely size 1" x" x scalp tissues deep, covered by blood clots. Surrounding scalp hair is marked with blood.
2. One lacerated wound on right mastoid area of skull. Size 1" x" x scalp tissue deep placed obliquely. Wound is covered by blood clots.
3.One lacerated wound on left parietal area of skull. Size 2" x" x scalp tissue deep placed horizontally covered by blood clots.
4. Bluish ecelymosis around right eye lids.
5. Abrasion on right cheek. 1" x" with swelling around it, brown in colour.
6. Abraded contusion on left cheek 2 diameter, bluish in colour. Blood clots in soft tissues.
7. Bruise on the inner side of upper lip right side 1" x" with blood clots in soft tissue.
8. Abrasion on left ear tubule and helix brown in colour.
9. Ligature mark around the neck in lower lalf placed horizontally, continuous all around, wide with the width of the ligature present around the neck, base is depressed and brown.
10. Abrasion on the part of neck on thyroid area" x 2/10" brown in colour.
11. Abrasion on the back of right elbow 1" x" brown.
12. Ligature mark on both wrists? on lateral sides (both forearms) light brown in colour.
13. Ligature mark around both ankles on outer sides only, light brown in colour, no abrasion.
All these injuries were found to be ante-mortem. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Cause of death of the deceased Vikram Singh was also coma resulting from head injuries.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellants had, however, strongly contended that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the involvement of two appellants in the Bank robbery and the murder of two chowkidars of the bank. Learned Counsel contended that in this case the very arrest of the two accused in the manner claimed by the prosecution is not established beyond reasonable doubt and if that contention is accepted by this Court the entire prosecution case has to fall to the ground. It was also contended that the prosecution had sought to establish its case on the basis of recoveries of part of the stolen cash amount from both the appellants pursuant to their disclosure statements and against accused Shree Bhagwan evidence of find of his finger print on a piece of paper and the trial court had accepted that evidence. However, learned Counsel contended, the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the recoveries of cash amount from the two appellants and the find of finger print of accused Shree Bhagwan was highly doubtful since there is no evidence of any independent person to prove the same and only the police officials who are all interested witnesses had been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, the recovery of the kattas and live cartridges from both the accused for which they have been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act had not been established by the evidence of any independent person and based on the interested evidence of police officials only the trial Court has convicted them. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that even the evidence of police witnesses suffers from serious infirmities and all of them have given contradictory versions about the arrest of the appellants and recovery of stolen cash amount pursuant to their respective disclosure statements and all the contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out before the trial court had been brushed aside in a casual manner by the learned trial judge. Lastly, it was also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that even if this Court accepts the prosecution case regarding the recovery of currency notes at the instance of the two appellants-accused, they would still not be liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 460/302/397 IPC and at the most they can be held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC only.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fully supported the judgment of the trial court holding the two appellants guilty for all the offences for which they were tried and contended that there being no infirmity in the findings of the trial court holding the appellants guilty this appeal should be dismissed and their convictions and the sentences awarded to them should be affirmed.
9. The case of the prosecution is that both of them were arrested on the night of 21-9-87 by the police officials of Punjabi Bagh police station on duty at Tikri Border when they had given a signal to the driver of maruti van No. DDA 8910 to stop but its driver instead of stopping had accelerated its speed and had tried to run away. The police officials gave a chase and could succeed in stopping the van after some distance and from that van two persons came out and started running away. However, they were apprehended by the policemen. The two appellants? accused are, as per the prosecution case, those two persons apprehended by the police. During their personal search arms and ammunition were recovered and accordingly two separate cases under Section 25 of Arms Act were registered vide FIR Nos. 439 and 440 at Punjabi Bagh police station. During their interrogation in police custody both the appellants? accused had made disclosure statements pursuant to which they had got recovered some of the stolen property of this case and then they came to be formally arrested in the case relating to the incident of robbery and murder registered at Connaught Place police station vide FIR No. 411/86 investigation of which had by that time been entrusted to the Crime Branch of the Delhi Police. The defense of the two appellants? accused before the trial Court regarding their arrest was that they had, in fact, been picked up from their houses and then implicated falsely in this case. Accused Sri Bhagwan had claimed that he was picked up from his village on 16-9-87 while accused Surender Singh claimed that he was picked up from his house on 17-9-87 and then falsely implicated in these cases. Accused Sri Bhagwan examined two witnesses in defense to show that he was in police custody on 16-9-87 and the police had searched his house in village Titoli, Rohtak that day and at that time nothing incriminating was recovered. Accused Surender Singh had also examined two witnesses to show that he was also in police custody on 17-9-87 and his house was also searched but nothing incriminating was found. Now, we have to consider as to whose version is reliable and acceptable. The prosecution examined PW-22 HC Ashok Kumar, PW-23 ASI Dharam Pal Singh, PW-24 SI Om Prakash, PW-25 Inspector Bal Kishan and PW-33 SI V.N. Jha all of whom were on checking duty at Tikri Border on the night of 21/22-9-87 when they claimed to have apprehended the two appellants - accused. All these witnesses have deposed about the arrest of the two accused persons in the manner noticed in the earlier part of our judgment. All of them have corroborated each other and have deposed that when they were checking the vehicles at Tikri Border the two accused came from the side of Bahadurgarh in maruti van No. DDA-8910 and when its driver was signalled to stop the van he accelerated its speed instead of stopping it and then that van was chased by them and after some distance the van could be stopped but the two occupants of the van immediately on coming out started running away but they were apprehended. They have also deposed that on being apprehended their personal search was conducted and at that time both of them were found to be in possession of a desi katta and some live cartridges. Their evidence has been found to be trustworthy by the learned trial Court and on an independent analysis of their evidence we also have found their version to be fully reliable and trustworthy. All these police officials had no reason to falsely depose against them about the aforesaid facts. All these witnesses despite gruelling cross-examination by the defense counsel could not be discredited. To none of these four police witnesses it was even suggested that the two accused had, in fact, been picked up from their villages on 16th and 17th September, 1986 as had been claimed by both of them in their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances evidence of these police witnesses cannot be rejected.
10. As far as the stand taken by the two accused regarding their arrest from their houses is concerned the same is not acceptable at all since except for their own ipse dixit there is no other evidence to support the same. As far as the four defense witnesses examined by the two accused are concerned we find from their evidence that DW-1 Balwan and DW-2 Balvir, both of whom are residents of village Titoli in Haryana where accused Sri Bhagwan claims to be living have deposed that on the night of 16-9-87 the police had come to their village and had brought accused Sri Bhagwan with them and when the police officials were asked as to what was the matter they did not tell anything. They have also deposed that nothing was recovered from the house of accused Sri Bhagwan. Referring to the evidence of these two defense witnesses learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Bhagwan had submitted that they are independent persons and had no reason to make a false statement in Court nor anything could be extracted from them in cross-examination by the public prosecutor which could falsify their statements. Similarly, the two defense witnesses examined by accused Surinder Singh have also deposed that the police had brought accused Surinder Singh to their village on 17-9-87 and that nothing was recovered from the house of this accused which was searched by the police and then after 4/5 days the police had again brought this accused to the village and at that time also nothing was recovered from his house. Learned Counsel for accused Surinder Singh also made a similar submission as was made by the counsel for the other appellant to the effect that DWs 3 and 4 were absolutely uninterested and independent persons having no reason to make false statement to save the accused. We are, however, not impressed with the evidence of the four defense witnesses. In case the accused persons had been falsely implicated and the defense witnesses had actually seen the two accused in police custody prior to 21/22-9-87 when the police claims to have actually arrested them then they would not have kept quiet for more than 15 years. None of the four defense witnesses claims to have lodged any complaint with any authority regarding the false implication of the accused persons. We are, therefore, not inclined to place any reliance on the evidence of any of the defense witnesses and the learned trial Court has also rightly disbelieved them.
11. PWs 22 and 24 have also deposed about the recovery of one country made revolver (Ex. P-35) with one live cartridge in it and two other live cartridges(Ex. P-36/1-3) from the possession of accused Sri Bhagwan at the time of his apprehension on the night of 21/22-9-87. PWs 23 and 25 have deposed about recovery of one country made revolver (Ex. PW-25/7) and live cartridges (Ex. P- 25/8-12) from the possession of accused Surender Singh at the time of his apprehension. PW-24 Sub-Inspector Om Prakash has also deposed about his getting FIR registered against accused Sri Bhagwan under the Arms Act and PW-25 has also deposed about his getting FIR registered against accused Surender Singh under the Arms Act. We have already found the evidence of the four police witnesses who had arrested the two accused persons to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable. We have also gone through their cross-examination in respect of their testimonies regarding the recoveries of arms and ammunition from the two accused. On this aspect of the prosecution case also they could not be discredited despite having been grilled at length by the defense counsel. The prosecution has placed on record reports of ballistic expert Ex. PW-24/4 and Ex. PW-25/3. As per these CFSL reports the country made pistols recovered from both the accused persons were found to be in working order and the cartridges recovered from them were also found to be ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. We are, therefore, of the view that relying upon the evidence of these four police witnesses the two accused were rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
12. As far as the conviction of the two accused for the serious offences of robbery and murder is concerned the prosecution had sought to establish its case for these offences also from the evidence of the afore-said four police officials. All the four witnesses have deposed that after being apprehended by them the two accused had made separate disclosure statements in which they had confessed about their having committed robbery and the two murders in State Bank of Mysore's branch at Connaught Place and also about their having kept some of the stolen cash from the strong room of the bank in their respective houses. PWs 22, 24 and 33 have also deposed that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Sri Bhagwan he had got recovered from his house some Indian currency notes of the total value of Rs. 31,875/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- were in two bundles of notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each and the remaining notes were lying loose. The two bundles of currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each were having the slips of State Bank of Mysore and on the basis of those slips of the bank the banks officials PWs 2 and 18 had identified those notes to be belonging to the bank during the test identification proceedings. Those two bundles of notes have been proved as Ex. P-3 and P-4. The loose currency notes recovered from the house of Sri Bhagwan are (Ex. P-37/1-15, P- 38/1-42, P-39/1-69, P-40/1-132 and P-41/1-34). These currency notes were seized vide memo Ex. PW-22/2. Two gold bangles(P-42/1-2) and one gold chain(Ex. P-43) were also recovered from the house of Sri Bhagwan and the same had also been seized vide memo Ex. PW-22/2. PWs 23 and 25 have also deposed about recovery of three bundles of currency notes (Ex. P-5? 7) of Rs. 100/- each(Rs. 30,000/- in all) from the house of accused Surender Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. Those three bundles were also having the slips of State Bank of Mysore. Some loose currency notes of the total value of Rs. 29,000/- were also recovered from the house of Surender Singh and the same were collectively marked as Ex. PW-25/6. These currency notes were seized vide memo Ex. PW-23/5. The three bundles of currency notes having the face slips of State Bank of Mysore and initials of PW-18 were also identified during the test identification proceedings by PWs 2 and 18. The accused persons have not claimed that the currency notes recovered from their houses belonged to them nor have they offered any explanation for the recovery of that much huge amount of cash from their houses. Since the evidence of the four police witnesses has been found to be wholly reliable we have no hesitation in accepting their evidence in respect of the recovery of cash amount also from the houses of two accused pursuant to their disclosure statements. These recoveries cannot be doubted for the reason that the same have not been proved by any public witness. The police officials have deposed that at the time of searches some of the villagers were asked to join the proceedings but none had agreed. We have no reason to disbelieve this statement also of the police witnesses. These recoveries were effected by the police officials of Punjabi Bagh police station which had nothing to do with the incident of robbery-cum-murder registered in 1986 at Connaught Place police station. So, it can also not be accepted that the police officials had planted the currency notes in the houses of the two accused persons, as was also the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. In respect of these recoveries it was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the same should not be relied upon because the prosecution has not proved the test identification proceedings during which the police officials claimed to have identified the same as belonging to the State Bank of Mysore. There is no doubt that the prosecution has not proved the TIP proceedings by examining the concerned Magistrate but in our view for that reason the recoveries of currency notes and their identification by PWs 2 and 18 cannot be said to be of no use for the prosecution. We find from the cross-examination of PW-18 Shri Mahadevappa, an employee of State Bank of Mysore, that it was suggested to him that he had identified the five bundles of currency notes (Ex. P-3? 7) before the Magistrate at the instance of police officials and also that he had been shown the packets of currency notes in the police station before he identified them before the Magistrate. This suggestion, which PW-18 refuted, clearly shows that the accused were, in fact, admitting that test identification proceedings in respect of the currency notes were actually held by a Magistrate and also that this witness had identified the five bundles of currency notes correctly. We have no reason to accept that PWs 2 and 18 had wrongly identified the currency notes during the test identification proceedings and then in Court.
13. Since huge amount of cash belonging to State Bank of Mysore was recovered from the possession of the two accused persons for which they offered no explanation as to how that money was lying in their houses it can be safely inferred that both of them had stolen that money from the bank and also that while committing robbery they had also killed the two chowkidars of the bank.
14. As far as appellant? accused Sri Bhagwan is concerned there is also evidence against him in the form of report of finger print expert PW-34 Shri P.S. Nayyar who was the Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I (Finger Prints Division), CFSL, New Delhi during the period 1986-87. He has deposed that on 30th May, 1986 on the request of the police a team of CFSL officials had inspected the scene of crime and from there some finger prints were lifted in respect of which his report was Ex. PW-34/1. One of the finger prints was developed from a piece of paper lifted from the place of occurrence and the same was marked as Q-3. As per the evidence of PW-34 when the said finger print Q-3 was compared with specimen thumb impression of the left hand of accused Sri Bhagwan both were found to be identical and he had given his report to that effect and the same was proved by him as Ex. PW-34/2. This witness was not cross-examined at all on behalf of any of the two accused persons. This piece of evidence adduced by the prosecution also corroborates the prosecution case against accused Sri Bhagwan. However, non-recovery of any finger print of accused Surender Singh from the place of occurrence does not show that he was not involved in the incident of robbery-cum-murder, as was also the submission of his counsel.
15. On the basis of recoveries of huge amount of cash amount from the houses of the two accused persons, which they have failed to explain, as well as the finger print expert's evidence it stands established beyond any shadow of doubt that both the accused persons had committed robbery in the State Bank of Mysore's branch at Connaught Place, New Delhi on the night of 27/28-5-86 and also that while committing robbery they had also killed two chowkidars of the bank. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court holding both the accused persons guilty for the offences for which they were tried and, therefore, their appeal is liable to be dismissed and their convictions and the sentences awarded to them deserve to be affirmed.
16. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Both the appellants be informed accordingly through the Jail Superintendent concerned.