Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vipin @ Pappu And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 October, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
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
(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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
(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
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.
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
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
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
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
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'
