I.S.Shrivastava, J. - (1.)THIS appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21/08/2000 passed by the Court of Shri Devendrasingh Solanki, 8th A.S.J., Indore in S.T. no. 129/1998, by which appellants Yasin and Shakil have been convicted under sections 302 read with section 120-B of the IPC with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and under sections 307 read with section 120-B of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under sections 394 read with 120-B of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/- as well as accused Adnan & Vinod @ Binnani have been convicted under sections 302/34 read with section 120-B of the IPC with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-; and under sections 307/34 read with section 120-B of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and under sections 394/34 read with section 120-B of the IPC with rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.5,000/-.
(2.)ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 27/01/1997 at about 10.45 am, complainant Indarsingh along with Mohanlal went to Dena Bank for depositing a cash amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs from petrol pump. As soon as they reached before the bank, two gun shots were fired from the left side. He saw that near the scooter stand, one person aged 30-32 years was standing with small gun in his hand. He tried to snatched the bag from Mohanlal, but Mohanlal did not allow him, then he fired on his neck, due to which Mohanlal fell down and he snatched the bag. At that time, one suzuki motorcycle came there, on which the person who snatched the bag and his companion ran away. Complainant Indarsingh pelted 2-3 stones at him and cried. At the same time, one Pappu Sardar chased the accused persons by his scooter and as soon as they reached before the Central Bank, Pappu Sardar tried to catch them, then accused person sitting as pillion rider fired on him and ran away towards Janki Nagar. Gun shot injured Pappu Sardar in the stomach. Then Pappu Sardar and Mohanlal were rushed to hospital by Rajendra etc. This incident was witnessed by Ashok who was the peon of the bank, Anil Tentwale, Sonu of STD and others. The complainant will identify the assailants. One assailant who fired with gun was aged 30-32 years with 5 ft. 10-11 inch hight, slim in structure. Other accused was near about 25 years of age; he was wearing jurkin and the accused who was driving motorcycle was near about 25 years with 5 ft 8 inch hight and was having light beard. The cash bag was of black canvas in which cash detail slips of notes and diary of pump were kept. The complainant will identify them. This report was lodged as dehati nalishi report of police station - Bhanwarkua, Indore, on the basis of which,FIR Ex.-P/25 at crime no. 33/1997 was registered at police station - Bhanwarkua, Indore under sections 394, 397, 307 of the IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act against unknown persons. During investigation, it was found that accused Yasin, Vinod, Adnan and Kazi Durrej were involved in this offence. Kazi Durrej became approver during investigation. Hence after completion of the investigation, challan was filed against four accused persons. After trial, the accused / appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove, hence this appeal.
During pendency of the appeal, appellants Yasin and Vinod died in encounter in Delhi on 12/06/2011 and appellant Adnan died on 16/06/2004 in police encounter in Mumbai. Hence the appeal abated against appellants Yasin, Vinod and Adnan.

It has been argued by the appellants' counsel on behalf of accused /appellant Shakil that there is no evidence against him. None of the prosecution witnesses identified and implicated him. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Only Indarsingh PW-6 named him, but his identification was not reliable. The report was lodged against unknown persons and he deposed that earlier he saw the accused persons in police station and on the basis of which, he identified them in jail. Hence this appeal be allowed.

(3.)IT has been argued by the respondent's counsel that on the basis of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, the appellant was rightly convicted. He has been identified by the witnesses, hence this appeal being devoid of merits be dismissed accordingly.
Considered the circumstances and record of the trial Court perused.