KAMALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.4.2002 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appellant accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 397 and 342 read with Section 34 I PC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 397/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 342/34 I PC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Shakti Chand Kamal (PW -1), Manager in Sate Bank of Patiala, Swahan, Sub Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, on 5.1.2001, alongwith staff members, Head Cashier Sudesh Kurhar Sood (PW -3), Aklesh Chander, Clerk -cum -Cashier (PW -2) and Dalip Singh, Watchman -cum -Peon, was working in the said bank. At about 1.15 p.m., the accused alongwith his companion Jaswinder Singh, who has been declared the proclaimed offender, entered the bank premises, said Jaswinder Singh pointed out a pistol at PW -1 and the accused pointed out a pistol at PW2 and demanded the keys of the bank and cash chest. PW -1 told them that the keys were with Sudesh Kumar Sood and so was the reply given by PW -3. The accused thereafter entered the room of the head cashier and removed the currency notes lying in the room of PW -3, after putting PWs 1 and 2, Dalip Singh, Watchman and two customers Badri Prasad (PW -4) and Bachna Ram (PW -5) inside a store, the door whereof was then closed. When the accused was removing the cash from the room of PW -3, Jaswinder Singh remained standing in front of PW -1 with the pistol pointed towards him and asking him to remain standing where he was. Thereafter, the accused alongwith Jaswinder Singh ran away in a white car. PW -3, who, at the relevant time, was outside the bank, had observed the happening inside and informed the police at Kainchi Mor. On return from Kainchi Mor, he also disclosed the number of the car in which the accused and his companion had bolted away. PW -1 gave the information of the occurrence to Police Station, Kot Kehloor, where the telephonic call was attended by ASI Hotam Chand (PW -8). About the information so received, report Ex.PL was recorded at the Police Station and then alongwith two head constables and a few constables, PW -8 proceeded to the spot. When he had reached near a Jungle, about two kms. away from Tobha, he noticed a white coloured Car No. HR -51 -F -6749 coming from the opposite side. PW -8 asked the driver of the car to stop but the driver put the car in reverse gear and in the meanwhile, the other person sitting in the front seat of the car started firing at PW -8. The occupants of the car got down from the car and continued firing at the police party in which PW -8 had narrow escape. The police party also opened fire but the occupants of the car ran away. Police chased them and the accused was apprehended in the jungle. However, his companion made good his escape. A sum of Rs.54,504/ - was found in possession of the accused which was seized vide memo Ex. PO. One USA made revolver and six live cartridges of 0.38 bore were also recovered from his possession vide memo Ex. PP. Car alongwith its number plates found inside the car, RC and other documents and a fired revolver buttlet were also taken in possession vide memo Ex. PQ Particulars of the accused and his companion were inquired. The accused, however, gave wrong particulars of his companion. After apprehension of the accused, RW -8 returned to the police station, handed over the case property to MHC Surinder Kumar. Some of the recovered articles were transferred to the case registered about the dacoity in the bank i.e. this case vide memos Exs. PM and PN. During investigation, the accused while in police custody, made disclosure statement Ex. PT on the basis of which a purse Ex.P -13 was recovered vide memo Ex. PU. On completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the accused alone, as his companion had absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge against the accused under Sections 397 and 342 read with Section 34 I PC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence.