ARUN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred under the provision of Section 374 of Cr.P.C by the appellants against the convictions and sentences pronounced against them by ASJ Indore in S.T.No.460/18 vide judgment dt. 31.3.2011. The convictions and sentences are noted as under in Tabular form :-

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that cash amounts from Rajwada Branch of Union Bank of India at Indore used to be transported to chest of Union Bank of India at Sindhi Colony. On 11.4.2008, the head cashier of Rajwada Branch namely Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta set out to deposit Rs.19.50 lacs in an auto rickshaw hired for Sindhi Colony Branch where chest is available for storing cash and he was accompanied by Rekha Dubey (PW5), a bank employee and another person called Vikas Shinde (PW32). Brij Mohan Gupta sat in a middle of seat along with the box containing money which was already fastened with two locks. As the auto rickshaw reached Manik Bagh Bridge, six persons in two motor cycles, one silver colored and the other red colored came from behind and blocked the path of auto rickshaw. Some of the riders jumped from their motorcycles and immediately dealt knife blows on Vikas Shinde (PW32) who got seriously injured and fell out of the auto rickshaw. These assailants thereafter dragged out Rekha Dubey (PW5) and thereafter they snatched the box from the hands of Brij Mohan Gupta and in the process gave knife injuries to him as well. When Brij Mohan Gupta, despite being hurt, ran after the accused persons, one of the accused fired from his fire arm resulting in serious injury to Brij Mohan Gupta. The auto rickshaw driver thereafter immediately took injured Vikas Shinde (PW32) to Police Station Juni and thereafter to M.Y. Hospital at Indore whereas Rekha Dubey (PW5) took Mr. Brij Mohan Gupta, who was critically injured to Anand Hospital. Before leaving for another hospital Rekha Dubey (PW5) called up her Branch Manager. The police of police station Juni had also got information in the meanwhile and the investigating officer reached Anand Hospital where the deceased was declared as brought dead. Rekha Dubey (PW5) thereafter narrated the story to Investigating Officer Mohan Singh (PW47) which was taken down in writing which is Ex.P/13 and thereafter on the basis of this Dehati Nalishi report, FIR Ex.P/60 was lodged and investigation was initiated. Two days later, ie., on 13.4.2008, a secret information was received in the police station that accused Rahul is about to leave the city and he is present on his house along with some other accused persons and is possessing looted cash of the bank. On the basis of such information, the place where Rahul was staying with two other co-accused persons was raided, and Rahul and two of his accomplices Ankur and Pradeep were nabbed and thereafter on interrogation Rahul spilled the beans and divulged about the roles of others also. Part of looted money was recovered from Rahul and on his memorandum from other accused persons as well, looted cash was recovered. Out of Rs.19.50 lacs Rs.17.24 lacs were recovered from various accused. This apart, sharp edged knives which were used in inflicting injuries on Vikas Shinde (PW32) and Brij Mohan Gupta were also recovered from these accused persons on the basis of their memorandum. The fire arm which was used in the incident was also recovered from the accused Ashok. These items along with the blood stained articles were sent to FSL for serological examination. The serological laboratory gave its findings and the fire arm was also sent to arms Moharrir which was found to be in a fit condition to fire. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and other co-accused persons including an accused namely Ejaz.

(3.) Charges were framed against all the accused under provisions of Section 396, 398 and 412 of IPC. Additional charges under Section 25(1-b) (b) of Arms Act were framed against accused Hemraj and Ravi whereas charge under Section 25(1-b) (a) of Arms Act was framed against accused Ashok. The accused abjured their guilt and claimed innocence. They proposed to give defence evidence. However, no defence evidence was led by them.