Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) THE appellant Pappu has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2008 passed by Sri Navneet Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2003 State of U.P. vs. Pappu, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 395 IPC to under go rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go additional simple imprisonment of two months. He has further convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 397 IPC to under go rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE relevant facts leading to this appeal are that on 4.9.2002 the bus no. UP81H 9120 was being taken from Bareilly Roadways Bus Station to Narora. THEre were total 28 passengers in the bus. When the bus reached near Kodhi Ashram at about 8.00 PM in the night, 5-6 miscreants, who were also travelling in the bus, tried to commit dacoity in the bus at the behest of country made pistol and looted Rs. 125/- from PW-1 Rais (Rahees) Mian, who was also travelling in the bus. THE conductor and passengers any how apprehended two miscreants, namely, the appellant Pappu and co-accused Umesh. Rest other miscreants managed their escape. PW-1 Rais Mian lodged the FIR at the police station concerned. Another FIR was also lodged by the conductor of the bus. The police registered the case for investigation and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant Pappu, Co-accused Umesh and Naresh in the court concerned. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under sections 395/397 IPC against the appellant Pappu and co-accused Umesh and Naresh. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
(3.) IT may not be out of context to mention that the cases of co-accused Umesh and Naresh were tried and decided separately vide the S.T. No. 161/2003. Consequently the appellant Pappu was tried in this case. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 Rais Mian, the complainant, was travelling as a passenger in the bus. It is said that Rs.125/- was robbed from this witness. This witness has not fully supported the prosecution case and showed his ignorance regarding the identity of the appellant. PW-2 Dharam Pal Singh was the conductor and PW-3 Amar Singh was the driver of the bus. These two witnesses have supported the prosecution case during the trial. PW-4 S.I. Yashpal Singh has proved the chik report Ex. Ka-3 and copy of the G.D. Ex. Ka-4. P.W.-5 S.I. Komal Singh, who had investigated the case, proved the charge sheet Ex. Ka-5.;