Sanjeev Kumar Sinha @ Sanjeev Kumar @ Guddu vs The State of Bihar

Mandhata Singh, J.—F.I.R. initiated on Fardbeyan of one Shivji Ram Mina, incharge Manager of Bank of India, Barew Branch, in brief, is that the informant along with other bank employees including Onkarnath Dixit Cashier, Dukhan Prasad, Mohan Kumar Pankaj and Suresh Chaudhary was busy with transaction of business in the Branch. In the meantime two young criminals with Pistols and two others with one Pistol each entered his Branch, they overpowered bank staffs at the point of Pistol. One of them came to cashier and enquired about cash. Two other criminals entered in cash cabin and picked up a bag containing cash. It is further said that one outsider namely Ramashish Yadav saw the occurrence from outside the branch and raised alarm. He informed the incident to Police Station. Further it is said that after loot robbers came out from the bank premises and rushed for their escape on Rajdoot Motorcycle without number plate towards Nawadah Ranchi Road. It is further said that one of the robbers was arrested by the local police with the help of local public. Further it is said that two criminals also were arrested by Police of Govindpur Police Station with country made Pistol, Motorcycle, artificial beard and moustache. Bunch of keys, small wrench and one ball-bearing left by robbers were seized in the case. It is made clear that Rs. 36,423/-in cash was taken away by robbers but they left Rs. 11,000/-as were in hurry at the cash counter. The trial is ended in conviction and sentence to the accused appellant for the offence u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code by passing the impugned judgment and order validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal.

In all 12 witnesses are examined in the case. They are P.W.1 Dr. Mukti Nath Singh, P.W.2 Ramashish Prasad, P.W.3 Anandi Prasad, P.W.4 Sunil Kumar, P.W.5 Onkar Nath Dikshit, P.W.6 Dukhan Prasad, P.W.7 Mohan Kumar Pankaj, P.W.8 Ajay Paswan, P.W.9 Harischandra Prasad, P.W.10 Jagroop Ram Sub-Inspector of Govindpur Police Station, P.W.11 Lal Krishna Ram I.O. of the case and P.W.12 Sheoji Ram Meena informant of the case.

P.Ws 1 to 4 are of no avail for the prosecution as they are making no statement on the point of commitment of crime, turned hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but revealing no material on the point of commitment of robbery.

P.Ws 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are officials of the bank. They are stating about taking place of robbery but identifying none. So, on the point of involvement of accused appellant they are also of no avail. Now rest three witnesses namely P.Ws. 10, 11 and 12 remain to discuss if succeed to involve this accused appellant. P.W.12 informant is the eye witness to the occurrence. He is giving divergent statement on the point of identification of accused appellant by making statement that four of the miscreants entered the bank premises covering their faces by clothes, artificial beard and moustache. Covering by means of artificial beard and moustache is lacking in the F.I.R., needs scrutinisation if disclosure of identification by this witness is going to be relied. In paragraph 2 of his statement this witness states that he did not identify any of the miscreants at the time of taking place of the occurrence but could identify them later.

F.I.R. is exhibited in the case as Exhibit 4 otherwise also formal F.I.R. comes under the category of public document may not be taken for its contents controverted in the case but may not be disputed on the point of non-controverted portion. Taking place of the incident is 12.45 PM; information is received to Police Station on the same day at 6.00 PM., written statement is given to the Police on the same day. F.I.R. as well as statement of this witness is that after commitment of robbery, miscreants fled towards Nawada Ranchi Road, chased by Police and Public. One of such criminals apprehended by the local public and rest two were by Police of Govindpur Police Station.

P.W.10 is Officer Incharge of Govindpur Police Station is claiming himself to apprehend one miscreant within the jurisdiction of his Police Station. Without controverting the informant, accused appellant may be involved, accepting identification by P.W.12 if prosecution succeeds to connect. In paragraph 3 of cross-examination this witness (P.W.12) states that he named miscreants as was told by Police specifying further that Officer Incharge called him in his chamber and produced miscreants. Before preparation of written application if there was any such incident is a matter to be considered in the case. Admittedly this accused appellant apprehended by Police Officer of Govindpur Police Station who (P.W.10) states in his chief itself about apprehension of accused appellant, recovery of certain articles including country made Pistol, artificial beard and moustache and preparation of seizure list. In paragraph 2 he further states that on such basis he lodged Govindpur Police Station Case No. 37/97.

P.W.11 is I.O. of the case who states about his going to Govindpur Police Station where he was told about apprehension of one miscreant namely this accused appellant, from there only he returned back to branch premises of the informant where he was given a written application. In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination this witness (P.W.11) states that this accused appellant was handed over to him on next day that is 29.10.1997 at about 9.30 AM much after lodging of the F.I.R. clearly goes to show that prosecution failed to connect that accused appellant was the person who after commitment of loot in the branch of the informant fled, chased and apprehended. Finding the statement of witnesses on the point of identification not reliable which has not been considered by the trial court, conclusion reached by it in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant for the offence u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code is not liable to sustain.

On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed, judgment and order dated 16.3.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 73/98/45/98 is set aside. In result accused appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled against him, set at liberty and discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.