Babu @ Manoj vs The State
2013 Latest Caselaw 4944 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                               DECIDED ON : 28th October, 2013


+                              CRL.A. 294/2002


       BABU @ MANOJ
                                                        ..... Appellant
                         Through : Mr.Harish Khanna, Advocate.


                                VERSUS


       THE STATE
                                                      ..... Respondent
                         Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Ajay Singh, Babu @ Manoj (the appellant), Samjay Samual

and Sanjeev Kumar Singh were arrested in case FIR No.96/1999 and

97/1990 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt and sent for trial for

committing offences under Sections 394/397/308/34 IPC and 5 TADA (P)

Act. Allegations against them were that on 06.04.1990 at 10.40 A.M. at

Syndicate Bank, Air Force Station Palam, they hatched conspiracy to rob

the bank. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, Ajay Singh, who was armed

with a pistol fired at Meghna Nand, guard on duty at the gate. The bullet

pierced through his wrist and came out of in between thumb and index

finger. Ajay Singh again pointed the fire arm towards head of the guard

and warned him not to raise hue and cry. Accused persons threatened

everybody present in the bank. Meghna Nand grappled with Ajay Singh

and tried to press the trigger of his gun but could not do so as his right

thumb was injured in the shot fired him. Ajay Singh fired more shots

towards the guard but these did not hit him and passed over his head.

When he did not surrender Ajay hit him on his head with the butt of his

revolver. Meghna Nand continued to grapple with Ajay Singh and with

the assistance of Dharminder and other staff, was successful to overpower

him. Ajay was accompanied by his two more accomplices i.e.Babu @

Manoj (the appellant) and Samjay Samual who were armed with weapons.

When they found that guard Meghna Nand was able to overpower Ajay,

they fled the spot. However, after some chase by Air Force officers

present in the bank, they were apprehended and weapons were recovered

from their possession. Statement of witnesses conversant with facts were

recorded during investigation. Sanjeev Kumar Singh was apprehended in

pursuance of disclosure statement of Ajay, who informed that he had

taken the mouser (revolver) from him. After completion of investigation

all of them were charge-sheeted for committing offences as mentioned

previously. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution

examined 17 witnesses. After appreciating the evidence and considering

the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned

judgment convicted Ajay Singh, Babu @ Manoj, and Samjay Samual in

Sessions Case No.33/2001 for offences under Sections 394/397/308/34

IPC and 25 Arms Act. They were acquitted under Section 5 TADA (P)

Act. Sanjeev Kumar Singh was acquitted of all the charges. It is apt to

note that the State did not challenge Sanjeev Kumar Singh's acquittal.

2. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that Babu @ Manoj has opted not to challenge

his conviction recorded by the Trial Court and accepts it voluntarily. He,

however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant has already

remained in custody for more than seven years in this case.

3. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the conviction

and accepts it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence, the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction are affirmed. The offence

committed by the appellant with his associates is grave and serious as they

all while armed with weapons entered the bank in an attempt to rob it

during day-time. To execute their plan, Ajay Singh fired at the guard who

was present on duty at the gate to protect the interest of the bank. He was

injured for no fault of his. At the same time it appears that the main

culprit is Ajay Singh, who is not one of the appellants before the court.

Babut @ Manoj did not fire at all at any staff member of the bank to

execute the plan or to assist his accomplice Ajay Singh. No role

whatsoever was attributed to him except that he was present with Ajay

Singh and was apprehended after some chase with the weapon. Nominal

roll dated 10.12.2008 reveals that he has remained in custody for six

years, eleven months and nineteen days as on 02.01.2003. He also earned

remission for two months and seventeen days. His jail conduct was

satisfactory and was not involved in any other criminal case. The incident

pertains to the year 1990. He has suffered the agony of trial/appeal for

about 22 years. After his enlargement on bail on 16.12.2002, his

involvement in any such activity did not surface. The sentence order of

the appellant is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the

period already spent by him in this case with fine of Rs.5,000/- and failing

to pay the fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The

appellant is directed to deposit fine Rs.5,000/- in the Trial Court within 15

days (if not deposited earlier).

4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of

the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for information. Trial

Court record along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE October 28, 2013 sa