BANTI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 27.11.2012, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18 -ST/7 of 2009, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 458, 395, 342 and 120B of the IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 342 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay find of Rs. 5000/ - and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 458 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 395 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under section 120B IPC. All the substantive sentences awarded were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW -10 Parma Nand was running a Karyana shop on the road side in his village Timbi. He was residing with his wife PW -12 Chemali, children and mother PW -11 Manso Devi. On 24.11.2008, PW -10 Parma Nand had gone to the house of his sister in Village Dharma. During the intervening night of 24/25.11.2008 at around 1:30 AM, two unknown persons called from outside for "lalaji" and demanded petrol. PW -12 Chemali Devi wife of PW -10 Parma Nand replied that they don't have petrol and then they told her that they were to make payment to her husband. She told them to come on the next day. Thereafter, they demanded water, which she provided through the door grill and took back the tumbler. Later three persons entered the room of PW -11 Manso Devi. Two of them caught hold of her by her arm and the third one from her hair and took her to the veranda outside. When she tried to raise hue and cry, she was threatened by them with dire consequences. On hearing commotion, her daughter -in -law Chemali came out. One of them put a knife on her neck and threatened to kill her if she made noise. Thereafter, both of them were taken inside the room. The assailants had muffled their faces below their eyes. Manso Devi PW -11 and Chemali Devi PW -12, both were confined in a room where children were sleeping and room was bolted from outside. After some time, they entered again and tied their hands with Chunni. Then, they broke open the Almirah of one of the room and trunk in the third room. They removed all the jewellery, cash, clothes, one suit case, bed sheets, CD player, remote control and dish receiver. The assailants were also joined by their other 2/3 accomplices. After committing dacoity in their house, they went to the shop of PW -10 Parma Nand and broke open the lock of the shop. They removed the shoes and cash lying in the shop. Thereafter, they came down to the house of PW -11 Manso Devi, prepared tea in the kitchen and after taking tea, left the place. PW -11 Manso Devi heard the sound of starting of the vehicle. After coming to know about the theft in their house, in the morning at around 6/7 AM, villagers visited their house. PW -10 Parma Nand was telephonically contacted by the co -villagers and informed about the incident. He rushed to his village. He noticed the Almirah kept in the room of his mother was broken. The gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 20,000/ - were found stolen. Thereafter, he inspected the wooden Almirah of his room. Its bolt was found broken. Rs. 80,000/ - were found missing. On 25.11.2008, PW -22 SI Jeet Singh received secret information about the dacoity in the village at the house of PW -10 Parma Nand. He effected the necessary recoveries from the spot. On 26.12.2008, he interrogated 8 accused persons who were arrested in another FIR No. 71 of 2008 in a bank dacoity case. Out of them, four accused, namely, Promod Kumar, Balbir Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Banti were found involved in this case. On 6.1.2009, accused Banti while in police custody made disclosure statement Ext. PW -1/B and on the basis of this disclosure statement, he got CD player Ext. P -6, shoes Ext. P -8 and sweater Ext. P -7 recovered vide memo Ext. PW -5/A. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Bhupinder Ahuja, Advocate for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 27.11.2012.