BHUPENDRA SINGH @ LALA BANNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 394 to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months additional imprisonment, under section 398 I.P.C. to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment, under section 450 I.P.C. to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under section 307 I.P.C. to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under sections 3/25 of Arms Act to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to payment of fine to further undergo two months additional imprisonment and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution is that on 23.7.2008 the Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer received an information that some persons came to rob S.B.I. Bank branch Regional College, Pushkar Road, Ajmer and made a gun fire and a person has been injured. On the information, the SHO, Christianganj, Ajmer reached at the place of incident and on spot the complainant Ratan Lal Agrawal, Manager, submitted a written report with the allegation that at about 1.50 p.m. the staff of the bank was doing work and customers were also present in the bank in which Parasaram was also there. At the same time three persons came in the Bank with an intention to rob which was opposed by Parasaram then a person made a gun fire on Parasaram which hit the stomach of Parasaram after crossing the stomach it hit the wall and fell in front of the cabin of the Manager. The other customers present in the bank tried to catch the accused and the person who made the gun fire was caught and rest of the two persons ran away. The Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer registered an FIR bearing No. 66/2008 for the offence punishable under sections 394, 397, 307, 450, 120B I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was filed against three accused persons. Against the appellant Bhupendra Singh @ Lala Banna charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 394, 397, 307, 450, 120B read with section 34 I.P.C. and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 394, 398, 450, 307-307/34 and section 120B I.P.C. and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 61 documents. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused got exhibited Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above and acquitted the other three accused persons namely Bhanwar Singh, Nand Kishore and Bheru Singh. The accused appellant against the conviction and sentence filed the above appeal.

(2.) Mr. R.S. Tanwar, learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused appellant is against the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as the law applicable. The Bank is situated at a public place therefore the charge of house trespass cannot be levelled. It is not proved from the prosecution evidence that the accused tried to rob the bank or its any part. It is also not proved that the accused appellant demanded any money or the keys or threatened any customer or bank employee to give money. As per the story of the prosecution about 500-600 M.L. Blood oozed out from the stomach of Parasaram and other witnesses also stated regarding the blood stained clothes of Parasaram. The prosecution in its story stated that after crossing the stomach of Parasaram the bullet hit a wall but the sign of hit of bullet on the wall had no blood stain. There are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses do not corroborate the site plan. As per the prosecution story the accused appellant was caught by the public about 2 p.m. but the IO has stated that the accused appellant was arrested at 5 p.m. i.e. after 3 hours and no explanation in this regard has been given. The gun and the bullets have not been identified from any of the witnesses and there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the weapon. Other arguments have also been argued by stating that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused appellant by cogent evidence and the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2011 cannot be said to be perverse. The accused appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.