RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.9.1999 passed by Shri Vinod Kumar Sinha, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1998 convicting the appellant No. 1, Manoj Singh alias Manoj Kumar Singh and finding him guilty under Sec.392 read with Secs. 297 and 411. Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 2, Prahlad Singh under Sections 392 and 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to under go RI for seven years and three years respectively. Appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar Singh has been acquitted of the charge under Sec.307, IPC.
(2.) A sanha was lodged when the police got information that Harladih Police Camp personnel and the villagers have caught two criminals who were running away after committing robbery at Harladih Rural Bank, on the point of arms. The FIR was recorded on the fardbeyan of the Manager of the Bank (PW 2). The prosecution case in brief is that on 1.7.1997 at about 1.40 p.m. the accused persons entered into the Bank and put a revolver on the chest of the Cashier (PW 3) and demanded cash on the threat of killing him. Due to fear, he took out some boundless of notes and gave the same to appellant No. 1. The appellant No. 1, Manoj Kumar Singh thereafter threatened the other staffs of the Bank also. He was trying to push the bundles of notes in his garments. Appellant No. 1, then asked for key of the main gate threatening that appellant No. 2 is standing out side the Bank who will kill, if any body raise hullah. Keys were given. The Bank was locked from out side and the appellants ran away. The Bank staffs raised hullah. They could un -locked the gate by duplicate keys. When the appellants were chased they fired. With the help of police, they chased and caught the appellants with revolver, keys and the looted money though looted money were recovered from the possession of both the appellants in part. The appellants disclosed their names. They were taken to Harladih Police Camp. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Pirtand P.S. case No. 27 of 1997 was registered under Sections 392 and 411, Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act and after investigation, the police submitted charge -sheet against the accused persons under Sections 392, 411 and 307, Indian Penal Code and Sec.27 of the Arms Act. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 392 and 411, IPC. Against appellant No. 1 charges were also framed under Sections 307 and 397, IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants, in the support of the appeal, reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the appellants before the trial Court. He submitted that the appellants were caught on 1.7.1997 but they were produced before the C.J.M. on 3.7.1997. The currency notes recovered from the possessions of the appellants was common article and it could not be presumed that they were stolen. He stated that when, as per the allegation, Manoj took the money, how the same was recovered in part from Manoj Kumar Singh and Prahlad Singh. He further submitted that as per the allegation, Rs. 11768/ were looted whereas Rs. 3068/ was recovered from the possession of Manoj Kumar Singh. Rs. 7900/ was recovered from the possession of Prahlad Singh which makes a total of Rs. 10968/ and therefore, there is a discrepancy of about Rs. 800/. He further submitted that there is a contradiction with regard to the time of occurrence and the place of seizure. He lastly submitted that a separate case being Pirtand P.S. Case No. 28 of 1997 was registered under the provisions of Arms Act. Therefore, It cannot be said that the prosecution has proved about use of arms in this case and no robbery could be committed without arms. Thus he submitted that the whole case is false.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW 1 is the employee (Peon) of the Bank. PW 3 is the Cashier. PWs 4, 5 and 6 are the villagers. PWs 6/A, 6/B and 7 are the police constables. PW 8 is a doctor who examined the injuries of the appellants. PW 9 is the Investigating officer and PW 10 is a formal witness.;