BABU @ MANOJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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).