Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) Under Section 397 IPC sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

(iii) Under Section 394 IPC sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

Ramanand

(i) Under Section 302/120B IPC sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default to undergo further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(ii) Under Section 394/120B IPC sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

Arvind Dubey

(i) Under Section 302/120B IPC sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default to undergo further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(ii) Under Section 394/120B IPC sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.

6. Accused statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations and stated that they have been wrongly implicated in the false case.

7. The trial court after hearing the arguments of the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, acquitted accused Laxman Rai and Smt. Chandra W/o accused Ramanand from the charges referred above and convicted the above three appellants and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as awarded and mentioned above. Being aggrieved against the judgment and order of the conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2002, all the three accused have preferred three separate appeals. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri PN Mohanani submitted that initially no charges under Sections 302/120B IPC and 394/120B IPC were framed against the accused and as per the fact mentioned in para No. 4 of the impugned judgment, at the time of final arguments, new charges under Sections 396 and 302/120B IPC have been framed. It is submitted that the trial court could not have framed the charge at the time of final arguments and the trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 302/120B IPC, which is illegal. The trial court acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 396 IPC and convicted under Section 394 IPC. It is also submitted that for charge for decoity all persons who conjointly committed decoity may be punished even if only anyone of them has committed crime of murder and the accused may be convicted for the act committed by other. But under Section 394 IPC individual act can make liable to that individual for the commission of offence and there cannot be jointness or common responsibility in a case under Section 394 IPC. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Mohanani also submitted that there is no evidence for the charge under Section 120B IPC and, therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 302 and 294 with the aid of Section 120B IPC is absolutely illegal as is not supported by any evidence. It is also submitted that in the act of robbery unless there is overt act of a person in the commission of offence of robbery, he cannot be convicted because of his presence with the person, who in fact, and actually committed offence of robbery. It is submitted that in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Singh Sandhu reported in 2005 Cri. L.J. 3950 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 121A IPC held that those who committed offences pursuant to conspiracy by indulging in various overt acts will be individually liable for those offences in addition to being liable for criminal conspiracy, but the non-participant conspirators cannot be found guilty of the offence or offences committed by the other conspirators. According to learned Counsel for the appellants the Hon'ble Apex court in the above judgment held that there is hardly any scope for the application of the principle of agency in order to find the conspirators guilty of a substantive offence not committed by them. It is also held that the offfender will be liable only if he comes within the plain terms of the penal statute. The criminal liability for an offence cannot be fastened by way of analogy or by extension of a common law principle. With the help of above judgment, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the act of commission of robbery completed with the snatching of the bag by the person and act of firing and killing one person is an act done after the completion of the act of robbery or snatching of bag containing the currency notes. The killing of Guard Samrath Singh is not part and parcel of the act of robbery and, therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 120B IPC.

34. In view of the clear language of Section 390 read with Section 394/120B IPC, the two appellants Ramanand and Arvind Dubey were rightly convicted for the charge under Section 394/120 B IPC apart from their conviction under Section 302/120B IPC. The conviction of Ramnarayan Singh under Section 302/120B, 397 and 394 IPC is upheld. The conviction of appellant Arvind Dubey for charge under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is also upheld.

35. In view of the above discussion, the all the three appeals are dismissed.