ANUJKUMAR NATHUNPRASAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As all the appeals arise from the common incident of alleged dacoity and the charge in both the original Sessions Case No.134 of 2004 and 86 of 2005 are the same as that for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 394 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act, they are being considered by this common judgement.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 3.11.2003, when the Branch Manager Yakubkhan PW-1 of Surat District Cooperative Bank, Kim Four Roads Branch, was on duty and with him, there were Bank Clerk, Afzal Yakhub Shaikh PW-2 and Peon Rohit T. Patel, at about 1 O'clock afternoon, five persons entered the Bank, aged between 25 to 30 years, and they pointed Tamancha (revolver) to the manager and gave a threat that if he would shout, he would be shot and he demanded all the cash balance. The another person also threatened Afzal, Clerk of the bank with a knife and when Peon Rohit came from the backside, he was given a kick-blow by one another person having Tamancha (revolver) with him. Thereafter, they compelled them to open cash box and the treasury and they took away the cash by putting it into a bag. They also demanded mobile, to which the bank employees said that they were not having and thereafter, PW-1 and PW-2 were kept inside and the treasury was locked by these persons and they went away on the Honda Motor Cycle. The complaint was filed with the concerned police station by the Branch Manager of the Bank, PW-1, Yakubkhan for the aforesaid incident of bank robbery.

(3.) The police investigated into the complaint and ultimately filed two charge-sheets; one principal charge-sheet and another supplementary charge-sheet and then the cases were subsequently committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No.134 of 2004 and No.86 of 2005 respectively. In Sessions Case No.134/2004 appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2006 was Accused No.1 (A-1), whereas appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1100 of 2006 was Accused No.2 (A-2) and appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1099 of 2006 was Accused No.3 (A-3), whereas in Sessions Case No.86/2005, the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.1098 of 2006 was shown as Accused No.1 (A-1). The another accused of Sessions Case No.86 of 2005, Shaikh @ Shaikh Sanu, Son of Bannemiya Shaikh has not preferred in Appeal.