Ramgopal Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3844 Chatt

                                1

                                                              NAFR

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

            Judgment Reserved on 29.04.2022

            Judgment Delivered on 17.06.2022

                      CRA No. 699 of 2018

 Anjil Dadsena, S/o Shri Ghanshyam Dadsena, aged about 31
  Years, R/o- Village- Salka, P.S.- Kapu, District- Raigarh,
  Chhattisgarh.

                                                        ----Appellant

                            Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- the P.S.- Kamleshwarpur,
  District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ---- Respondent

CRA No. 866 of 2018

 Raju @ Santosh, S/o Shri Ramchandra Koiyari, aged about 23 Years, R/o- Village- Goriyakarma, P.S. Barhi, District- Hajaribagh, Civil and Revenue District- Haribagh (Jharkhand).

----Appellant

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

CRA No. 876 of 2018

 Sibal Sai, S/o Guruwaru Ram Baiga, aged about 44 Years, R/o Village Chalha, Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

----Appellant

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police of Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

CRA No. 954 of 2018

 Shailendra Tiwari, S/o Late Kunjeshwar Tiwari, aged about 29 Years, R/o- Village- Khamhar, Police Station- Kapu, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

----Appellant

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Kamleshwarpur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

CRA No. 1073 of 2018

1. Ramgopal Verma @ Rajesh Sahai @ Sinha Ji, S/o Sachchidanand Verma, aged about 45 Yearsm R/o Village Rohini, Police Station Chouparan, District Hajaribag, Jharkhand.

2. Vinod @ Vijay Kumar, S/o Mathur Mahato, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village Goriyakarma (Dhobiyadand), Police Station Barhi, District Hajaribag, Jharkhand.

----Appellants

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

CRA No. 1178 of 2018

1. Mantu Singh, S/o Ashok Singh, aged about 26 Years, R/o- Village Akodibhola, Police Station Tetrad, District- Rohtas (Bihar).

2. Munna Pandey, S/o Janardan Pandey, aged about 23 Years, R/o- Village Chhotkimod, Police Station Sasaram (Mufsil), District- Rohtas (Bihar).

---Appellants

Versus

 State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Appellants Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Mr. Govind Dewangan and Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocates for the respective appellants.

For State Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Government Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya C A V Judgment

1. As all these aforesaid appeals filed under Section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C. arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja), C.G. in Sessions Trial No.74/2015,

they are being disposed by this common judgment. By the

impugned judgment, the appellants are convicted and sentenced

as under:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 395 of Indian Rigorous Imprisonment for ten Penal Code (for short 'IPC') years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Section 397 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.

Under Section 398 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years.

Under Section 120-B of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Section 25 of Arms Act Rigorous Imprisonment for two for appellants- Ramgopal years and fine of Rs.2,500/-, in Verma @ Rajesh Sahai @ default of payment of fine Sinha Ji, Vinod @ Vijay amount to undergo additional

Kumar, Mantu Singh and rigorous imprisonment for thee Munna Pandey months

Under Section 27 of Arms Act Rigorous Imprisonment for five for appellants- Ramgopal years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in Verma @ Rajesh Sahai @ default of payment of fine Sinha Ji, Vinod @ Vijay amount to undergo additional Kumar, Mantu Singh and rigorous imprisonment for six Munna Pandey months

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.03.2015, PW-3

complainant- Dilip Ekka, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,

Narmadapur, made a written complaint Ex.P-2 alleging in it that

on the same day i.e. 17.03.2015 at about 4:30 pm some

unknown persons, conspired for committing the offence of

dacoity, entered the said Bank with deadly weapons i.e. country

made pistols, firearms and live cartridges, threatened the

employees of the Bank of life and on the point of gun, looted

Rs.19,03,433/- from the Bank. When the complainant- PW-3 Dilip

Ekka, PW-11 Ranjeet Singh Kushwaha and PW-4 Ganesh

Prasad Gupta tried to stop the accused persons, they assaulted

upon them with hands and butt of the firearms (Katta), as a result

of which Ranjeet Singh Kushwaha and Ganesh Prasad Gupta

sustained injuries on head and accused persons fled from there.

Accused persons also snatched the Samsung mobile phone of

complainant- Dilip Ekka and one mobile of Pawan Singh. On the

basis of written report Ex.P-2, FIR Ex.P-4 was registered against

the unknown persons at police station Kamleshwar bearing

Crime No.15/2015. As per the information given by the

complainant, five unknown persons entered the bank and looted

Rs.19,03,433/- and physical features and description of the

persons who committed dacoity were also mentioned in the FIR.

3. Injured persons were sent for medical examination who were

examined by PW-24 Dr. Suyash Tiwari vide Exs.P-60 & 61. The

injuries sustained by the injured persons are as under:-

Injured- Ganesh Prasad Gupta

1. Lacerated wound size 5 mm x 5 mm which was on the back side of his head and blood was oozing profusely. Injury was simple in nature.

Injured- Ranjeet Kumar

1. Swelling size 3 cm x 3 cm was found on his back side of head. Injury was simple in nature.

According to the Doctor, injuries were caused by hard

object to the injured persons.

4. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-5, one

bag was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-7, spot map Ex.P-9 was

prepared by Patwari, accused persons were arrested on

17.03.2015 vide Exs. P-26 to P-32 respectively, identification

parade was held by PW-31 Mayanand Chandra, Tehsildar vide

Ex.P-8 where accused persons namely Munna Pandey, Mantu

Singh, Raju @ Santosh, Ram Gopal, Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and

Raj Kumar were identified by PW-3 complainant- Dilip Ekka, PW-

9 Pawan Kumar and PW-16 Jitendra Ram respectively.

Memorandum statement of accused person Ram Gopal Verma

@ Rajesh Sahai Sinha was recorded vide Ex.P-11 consequent to

which cash of Rs.3,15,000/-, one country made pistol in working

condition and one 315 bore live cartridges were seized vide

Ex.P18. Memorandum statement of accused- Mantu Singh was

recorded vide Ex.P-12 consequent to which cash of Rs.20,000/-,

one 315 bore country made pistol and one live cartridge were

seized vide Ex.P-25. Memorandum statement of accused Munna

Pandey was recorded vide Ex.P-13 consequent to which cash of

Rs.5,000/- was seized vide Ex.P-19. Memorandum statement of

accused- Vinod Kumar @ Vijay Kumar (Ex.P-14) led to seizure of

one 315 bore country made pistol and one live cartridge vide

Ex.P-21. Consequent to memorandum statement of accused

Raju Kumar Verma @ Santosh vide Ex.P-15, cash of Rs.3000/-

was seized vide Ex.P-20. On the memorandum of accused Anjil

Dadsena vide Ex.P-16, cash of Rs.5,000/- and one nokia mobile

number 7773885418 were seized vide Ex.P-23. Likewise,

memorandum statement of accused Shailendra Tiwari vide

Ex.P-17 led to recovery of cash of Rs.5,000/- was seized vide

Ex.P-22. From accused- Sibbal Sai Bega, one Samsung

company mobile was seized vide Ex.P-24 and from accused-

Mantu Singh, cash of Rs.20,000/-, one 315 bore country made

pistol and one live cartridge were seized vide Ex.P-25. From the

possession of accused- Munna Pandey, one 12 bore country

made pistol, two live cartridges, Rs.1,000/- cash and one mobile

phone of L.G. company were seized vide Ex.P-35. From the

possession of accused - Mantu Singh, one Samsung moblie

phone and two golden rings were seized vide Ex.P-36. From

accused-Raju @ Santosh, cash of Rs.2,500/- and one spice

company mobile were seized vie Ex.P-37. From accused Vinod

@ Vijay, cash of Rs.7,500/-, one knife and two mobile phones of

zen company were seized vide Ex.P-38. From the possession of

accused-Chandra Prakash @ Ramgopal @ Sinha, five mobile

phones of Samsung company, two sets of golden ear rings, two

golden rings, golden chain, scooty and receipt of purchased

articles were seized vide Ex.P-39. Call details (Article-A) of the

accused persons were also collected by the Investigating Officer.

5. After recording statements of the witnesses and completing the

formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the

accused/appellants under Sections 395, 397, 398, 120-B of

Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Section

66 (C) of I.T. Act.

6. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 395, 397, 398,

120-B of IPC against the appellants- Raju @ Santosh, Shailendra

Tiwari, Ashish @ Ashu Agarwal, Anjil Dadsena and Sibal Sai &

Sections 395, 397, 398, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of

the Arms Act against Ramigogal Verma @ Rajesh Sahai @ Sinha

Ji, Vinod @ Vijay Kumar, Mantu Singh and Munna Pandey which

were denied by them and they prayed for trial. The prosecution

examined 43 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Ranjeet

Singh Kushwaha (Now PW-11), PW-2 Brijesh Yadav, PW-3 Dilip

Kumar Ekka, PW-4 Ganesh Prasad Gupta, PW-5 Kishan Kumar

Pandey, PW-6 Sonu Agrawal, PW-7 Ashu Agrawal, PW-8 Satish

Kumar Soni, PW-9 Pawan Kumar Singh, PW-10 Hemant Kumar

Rathiya, PW-12 Gaya Prasad Yadav, PW-13 Santosh Pandey,

PW-14 Kaileshnath Soni, PW-15 Satish Kumar Singh, PW-16

Jitendra Ram, PW-17 Bodhan Ekka, PW-18 Bheem Sen, PW-19

Naveen Khalkho, PW-20 Shrinath Sonwani, PW-21 Sanjay

Jaiswal, PW-22 Mithlesh Singh, PW-23 Chanesh Ram, PW-24

Dr. Suyash Tiwari, PW-25 Ramesh Khalkho, PW-26 Sonu Kumar

Sinha, PW-27 Geeta Ram Sahu, PW-28 Sunil Kumar Ilamkar,

PW-29 Omprakash Sinha, PW-30 Virendra Kujur, PW-31

Mayanand Chandra, PW-32 Devdutt Singh, PW-33 Raj Bahadur

Singh, PW-34 Arjun Prasad, PW-35 Visheshwar Prasad, PW-36

Manoj Kumar, PW-37 Bhadur Mahto, PW-38 L.K. Pandey, PW-39

Ranjeet Singh, PW-40 Sant Kumar Mehta, PW-41 J.S. Marawi,

PW-42 Gorakh Pandey and PW-43 Musafir Pandey. Statements

of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in

which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing

against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and

false implication by the employees of the Bank for screening the

actual culprits. However, no defence witness was examined by

them.

7. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and

considering the material available on record convicted and

sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that though they have

raised various grounds in the memo of appeals

challenging the conviction as well as the sentence part, however,

they are now confining their arguments only to the sentence part.

They submit that the appellants are in jail since 29.03.2015 i.e.

more than seven years and three months and they have no

criminal antecedents. Therefore, the jail sentence awarded to the

present appellants may be reduced to the period already

undergone by them.

9. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned

counsel for the State submits that conviction and sentence of the

accused/appellants are strictly in accordance with law and there

is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by

this Court.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

11. Though, learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged

the conviction of the appellants and have assailed only the

sentence part, however, it is duty of the Court to decide the

appeals on merit on the basis of material available on record even

in absence of challenge by the appellants to the conviction part.

12. PW-2 Brijesh Yadav has admitted in his deposition that on

17.03.2015 at about 4:00 pm loot was committed by the dacoits.

He has also stated that peon of the said bank had informed him

about the loot committed by some unknown persons. Thereafter,

he went there and called the other persons. This witness has not

identified the accused persons.

13. PW-3 Dilip Kumar Ekka, Branch Manager, PW-4 Ganesh Prasad

Gupta, PW-5 Kishan Kumar Pandey, PW-6 Sonu Agrawal, PW-7

Ashu Agrawal, PW-9 Pawan Kumar Singh, PW-11 Ranjeet Singh

Kushwaha, PW-12 Gaya Prasad Yadav and PW-13 Santosh

Pandey have admitted in their depositions that on 17.03.2015 at

about 4:00 pm some unknown persons entered the Bank and on

the point of gun, looted Rs.19,03,443/- from the Bank but these

witnesses have not identified the accused persons appearing

before the Court through video conferencing.

14. PW-8 Satish Kumar Soni who is a witness to seizure memos

Ex.P-35 to Ex.P-39 has though turned hostile but admits his

signature on the aforesaid documents.

15. PW-10 Hemant Kumar Rathiya has turned hostile and not

supported the prosecution case.

16. PW-14 Kaileshnath Soni did weighment of the jewellary which

were brought to him by the police and gave receipt Ex.P-45. He

admits his signature on the said document.

17. PW-18 Bhemsen, salesman, stated in his deposition that in the

year 2015 some unknown persons came to his showroom and

purchased golden ornaments worth Rs.24,000/-. This witness has

proved the Ex.P-55 (seized bill) but did not identify the accused

persons.

18. PW-19 Naveen Khalkho, salesman, has proved the seized bill

Ex.P-56 but did not identify the accused persons.

19. PW-20 Shreenath Sonwani and PW-21 Sanjay Jaiswal did not

identify the accused persons but PW-21 Sanjay Jaiswal has

admitted his signature in seizure memo Ex.P-58.

20. PW-22 Mithlesh Singh, Driver, is the witness to search

panchanama Ex.P-59 and seizure memos Ex.P-35, 36 and P-37 to

P-39. Though he has turned hostile but has admitted his

signatures on the aforesaid documents.

21. PW-23 Chanesh Ram did not identify the accused persons but he

has admitted his signature in seizure memo Ex.P-58.

22. PW-24 Dr. Suyash Tiwari medically examined the injured Ganesh

Prasad Gupta and Ranjet Kumar on 19.03.2015 and as per Ex.P-

60 noticed lacerated wound size 5 mm x 5 mm which was on the

back side of his head and blood was oozing profusely. As per

Ex.P-61, he noticed swelling size 3 cm x 3 cm was found on his

back side of head of injured Ranjeet Kumar. According to the

Doctor, injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard object.

He has duly proved the aforesaid medical documents.

23. PW-25 Ramesh Khalkho did not identify the accused persons but

he has admitted his signature in memorandum of accused persons

Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-32.

24. PW-26 Sonu Kumar Sinha did not identify the accused persons

but he has admitted his signature in seizure memo Ex.P-63.

25. PW-27 Geeta Ram Sahu, Assistant Grade-II in Licence Section,

Office of Collector, Ambikapur, has proved the receipt of

applications Exs. P-64, 65 and 68 and order passed by the District

Magistrate, Sarguja regarding sanction for prosecution under

Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act against the accused- Mantu,

Ramgopal, Munna Pandey and Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and that fact

is not disputed by the parties.

26. PW-28 Sunil Kumar Ilamkar, Assistant Sub-Inspector, examined

the firearms seized from accused Munna Pandey, Mantu Singh,

Ramgopal, Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and found the seized firearms in

running condition and the cartridges seized by them were live

cartridges. He has duly proved the examination reports Ex.P-66

Ex.P-67, Ex.P-68 and Ex.P-69 respectively.

27. PW-29 Omprakash Sinha did not the identify the accused

persons but he has admitted his signatures in search panchnama

Ex.P-70 and seizure memo Ex.P-63

28. PW-30 Virendra Kujur, ASI, sent the injured persons Ganesh

Prasad Gupta and Ranjeet Kumar to Community Health Center,

Narmadapur for medical examination vide Exs.P-7A and P-16A.

He has proved the aforesaid documents.

29. PW-31 Mayanand Chandra, Tehsildar, who conducted the

identification parade Ex.P-8, states that in his presence accused

persons namely Munna Pandey, Mantu Singh, Raju @ Santosh,

Ram Gopal, Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and Raj Kumar were identified

by PW-3 complainant- Dilip Ekka, PW-9 Pawan Kumar and PW-16

Jitendra Ram respectively. He has duly proved the said

identification parade.

30. PW-32 Dev Dutt Singh, Constable No.724, has proved the mobile

call details of 113 pages vide seizure memo Ex.P-71 and admitted

his signature on the aforesaid documents.

31. PW-33 Raj Bhadur Singh, Patwari, has prepared the spot map

Ex.P-9 and duly proved the same.

32. PW-34 Arjun Prasad and PW-35 Visheshwar Prasad have turned

hostile and not supported the prosecution case but these

witnesses have admitted their signatures in search panchnama

Ex.P-72.

33. PW-36 Manoj Kumar and PW-37 Bhadur Mehto have turned

hostile and not supported the prosecution case but these

witnesses have admitted their signatures in search panchnama

Ex.P-73.

34. PW-38 L.K. Pandey, Station-Incharge, recorded the statements of

the witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted the

final report before the concerned Court.

35. PW-39 Ranjeet Singh and PW-40 Sant Kumar Mehta have

turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case but these

witnesses have admitted their signatures in search panchnama

Ex.P-74.

36. PW-41 J.S. Marawi, Investigating Officer, recorded first

information report Ex.P-4, prepared spot maps Ex.P-5 and P-45,

recorded statements of the witnesses, he also recorded

memorandum statements of the accused persons vide Ex.P-11 to

Ex.P-17 and consequent to which certain articles as mentioned

above were seized vide Ex. P-18 to Ex.P-39. He has duly proved

the prosecution case.

37. PW-42 Gorakh Pandey and PW-43 Musafir Pandey have turned

hostile and not supported the prosecution case but these

witnesses have admitted their signatures in search panchnama

Ex.P-75.

38. This fact is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable

doubt that on the date of incident i.e. 17.03.2015 some unknown

persons after hatching conspiracy for committing loot in the Bank,

entered the Bank with the deadly weapons, threatened the

employees of Bank of life and when Dilip Ekka, Ganesh Prasad

and Ranjeet, employees of the Bank, tried to stop the accused

persons, they assaulted upon them and looted Rs.19,03,443/-

from the Bank.

39. Now this Court proceeds to see whether the evidence available

on record proves commission of dacoity by the appellants with

deadly weapons.

40. Sanction for prosecution under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act

has already been proved by PW-27 Geeta Ram Sahu and that fact

is not disputed by counsel for the appellants. PW-28 Sunil Kumar

Ilamkar, ASI, has duly proved the fact that the firearms seized from

the accused- Mantu, Ramgopal, Munna Pandey and Vinod Kumar

@ Vijay were found in running condition and that cartridges seized

from them were live cartridges vide Ex.P-66 to P-99.

41. So far as identification of the accused persons is concerned, vide

Ex.P-8 test identification parade was conducted by PW-31

Mayanand Chandra, Tehsildar where PW-3 complainant- Dilip

Ekka, PW-9 Pawan Kumar and PW-16 Jitendra Ram duly

identified the accused persons namely Munna Pandey, Mantu

Singh, Raju @ Santosh, Ram Gopal, Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and

Raj Kumar respectively. Though PW-31 Mayanand Chandra,

Tehsildar, in his deposition has duly proved the test identification

parade vide Ex.P-8 stating that the aforesaid accused persons

were duly identified by PW-3 complainant- Dilip Ekka, PW-9

Pawan Kumar and PW-16 Jitendra Ram, however, PW-3, PW-9

and PW-16 have not identified the accused persons appearing

before the Court through video conferencing but they admitted

their signatures on the document of Ex.P-8 (Test Identification

Parade).

42. It is not in dispute that the incident took place on 17.03.2015, the

test identification parade was conducted on 15.04.2015 and the

witnesses PW-3 complainant- Dilip Ekka, PW-9 Pawan Kumar and

PW-16 Jitendra Ram were examined before the Court on

07.11.2016, 09.12.2017 and 04.04.2017 respectively i.e. 1½ - 2

years of the incident. As per their depositions, it is seen that the

accused persons were produced before the Court through video

conferencing and, therefore, it appears that due to long time gap

and appearance of the accused persons through video

conferencing, these witnesses could not identify them before the

Court whereas in the test identification parade Ex.P-8 conducted

by PW-31 Mayanand Chandra, Tehsildar, they duly identified the

accused persons namely Munna Pandey, Mantu Singh, Raju @

Santosh, Ram Gopal, Vinod Kumar @ Vijay and Raj Kumar. There

is no major contradiction or omission in the statement of PW-31

Mayanand Chandra. PW-16 Jitendra Ram has clarified in para 4

of his deposition that due to long time gap he is unable to identify

the accused persons who appeared through video conferencing.

Thus, considering the depositions of PW-31 Mayanand Chandra,

PW-3 Dilip Ekka, PW-9 Pawan Kumar and PW-16 Jitendra Ram

and the document of test identification parade Ex.P-8, this Court is

of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved

identification of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

43. Though independent witnesses to memorandum and seizure i.e.

PW-5 Kishan Kumar and PW-25 Ramesh Khalkho have not

supported the prosecution case but they admit their signatures on

documents Ex.P-11 to P-32 and stated that they signed these

documents voluntarily without any pressure or threat by the police.

44. PW-41 J.S. Marawi is the Investigating Officer in this case. He

proved the written complaint Ex.P-2 made by the PW-3 Dilip Ekka

and FIR Ex.P-4 and also proved the spot map Ex.P-5, seized one

plastic vide Ex.P-7 and also recorded the statements given by the

witnesses. He has also proved this fact as per S.No. 1, 2 & 3 of

spot map Ex.P-45, he seized three motorcycles i.e. Honda Shine,

Platina & Apache vide Ex.P-44 from village Sonpur, Gidhghota. He

recorded the memorandum statements of the accused persons

vide Exs.P-11 to P-17 and consequent to which firearms, live

cartridges, cash, golden ornaments, mobile phones, motorcycles

etc. as mentioned in the preceding paragraph vide Exs.P-18 to

Ex.P-39 and arrested the accused persons vide Ex.P-26 to 32

respectively.

45. It cannot be stated as a rule of law that a police officer can or

cannot be a reliable in a criminal case which will always depend

upon facts of a given case. If testimony of such a witness is

reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other

witnesses or admissible evidence, then statement of such witness

cannot be discarded only on ground that he is a police officer and

may have some interest in success of the case. Only when his

interest in success of case is motivated by overzealousness to an

extent of his involving innocent people, then, no credibility can be

attached to is statement. Presumption that a person acts honestly

applies as much in favour of a police officer as in respect of other

persons and it is not proper to distrust and suspect him without

there being good grounds therefor.

46. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come

forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police Officer

is found to be reliable and trust worthy, the Court can definitely act

upon the same. If, in the course of scrutinizing the evidence, the

Court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and

untrustworthy, the Court may disbelieve him but it should not do so

solely on the presumption that a witness from the department of

police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the

principle that quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of

evidence. [Pramod Kumar V. State (GNCT) of Delhi reported in

AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3344]. The same principle of law has

been reiterated by the Supreme Court Judgment in the matter of

Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 17 SCC 554

and in paragraph 10 it has been observed as under:

"10. There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officialsunless supported by independent evidence is unworthy of acceptance. Evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to police force and interested in the investigation and their desire to see the success of the case. Prudence however requires that the evidence of police officials who are interested in the outcome of the result of the case needs to be carefully scrutinised and independently appreciated. Mere fact that they are police officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthiness."

47. In the matter of Rajesh Dhiman Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

and connected matter Gulshan Rana vs State of Himachal

Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 740, where the accused/appellants were

acquitted of the charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act by the

trial Court and later convicted under the said Section by the High

Court, affirming the judgment of conviction of the High Court, the

Apex Court referring to its earlier various judgments holding the

field, held that non-examination of the independent witnesses or

independent witnesses turning hostile would not ipso facto be fatal

to the prosecution case if the evidence of the official witnesses /

police personnel remain impeccable and free from the suspicion of

falsity.

48. In the present case also, though PW-3 Dilip Ekka, PW-9 Pawan

Kumar and PW-16 Jitendra Ram who duly identified the accused

persons in test identification parade vide Ex.P-8 have not identified

them before the Court but they have admitted their signature on

Ex.P-8 and that the official witnesses PW-31 Mayanand Chandra,

Tehshildar and PW-11 J.S. Marawi, Investigating Officer have duly

proved the prosecution case including the test identification parade

as well as the seizure of incriminating articles i.e. firearms, live

cartridges, mobile phones, motorcycles, golden ornaments etc.

The defence could not elicit anything from them to make their

evidence untrustworthy or doubtful. There is nothing on record to

show that these witnesses have any animosity or were inimical to

the appellants. Being so, there is no reason to doubt the credibility

of the aforesaid witnesses. In the said incident, injured - PW-4

Ganesh Prasad Gupta and PW-11 Ranjeet Kumar suffered injuries

due to assault made by the accused persons and as per evidence

of PW-24 Dr. Suyash Tiwari, he noticed lacerated wound on the

back side of his head of injured- Ganesh Prasad Gupta and blood

was oozing profusely and also noticed swelling on the back side of

head of injured Ranjeet Kumar. Thus, the medical evidence also

lends corroboration to the prosecution case.

49. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court finds no illegality

or infirmity in the impugned judgment convicting the appellants

under Sections 395, 397, 398, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25 & 27

of the Arms Act.

50. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that

the incident took place in the year 2015, the appellants are in jail

since 29.03.2015 i.e. for the last seven years and three months

months, they have no previous conviction nor any criminal

antecedents, they are the first offenders, the age of the appellants

at the time of incident i.e. 31, 23, 44, 29, 45, 34, 26 & 23

respectively, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice

would be served if they are sentenced to the period already

undergone by them while keeping the fine amount with default

sentence as imposed by the trial Court intact.

51. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part. While maintaining

the substantive jail sentence as well as the fine sentence with

default stipulation imposed on the appellants- Ramgopal Verma @

Rajesh Sahai @ Sinha Ji, Vinod @ Vijay Kumar, Mantu Singh and

Munna Pandey by the trial Court under Sections 25 & 27 of the

Arms Act, the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the

appellants under Sections of 395, 397, 398, 120-B of IPC is

reduced to the period already undergone by them while keeping

the fine sentence with default stipulation thereunder intact.

52. The appellants are reported to be in jail, therefore, they are

directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in

connection with any other offence.

Sd/-

Gautam Chourdiya Judge

Akhilesh