He was taken to his house and he produced two Fixed Deposit Receipts dated 22nd December, 1980 one of Rs.10,000/ in his own name and the other of Rs.20,000/ in the name of his daughter issued from the State Bank of India, Govind Nagar Branch, Kanpur.
Hari Shankar, PW.4, Sharda Charan and Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16 are the employees of the said firm.
Lal Singh, their associate was a member of the police force and was resident of Azmatpur.
From the books of account inspected by the Investigating Officer it appeared that appellant Lal Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/ from Hira Chandra Jain on 9th June, 1980 and had repaid the same on 5th December, 1980.
He was taken to the house of Chunni Lal on 19th January, 1981 and said Chuni lal companyfirmed that Rs.3,000/ in currency numberes were given to him by appellant Hukum Singh on 4th December, 1980.
A train robbery is said to have taken place between railway stations Shikohabad and Etawah at about 4.45 a.m. on 30th October, 1980 when the train had just moved out of Shikohabad railway station and was proceeding at a very slow speed.
According to him he had arrested Sharda Charan on 6th March, 1980 in companynection with smuggling of gold.
A sum of Rs.57,000/ was still with him and he handed over the currency numberes totalling Rs.57,000/ to PW.48.
Later on the same day PW.32 produced a sum of Rs.5,000/ before the Investigating Officer and the same was seized by the Investigating Officer under memo exhibit Ka 106.
P.C. this witness had claimed that he used to get ornaments made from the firm, but the evidence examined by the defence sought to prove that he had been visiting the shop of the firm in the companypany of Sadhu Singh, DW.1 who got ornaments made from them.
M. P. No.7792 of 2002 against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the appellants of the charge under section 411 IPC.
He also denied that he had given a sum of Rs.80,000/ to Bishamber Singh Constable.
He claimed that the amount had been companylected by him and four others to purchase a house at Kanpur.
They came to Kanpur and then went to police station Rasoolabad where from they arrested appellant Hukum Singh at 11.55 p.m. on 28th December, 1980 and made him baparda.
It was further stated by them that they had deposited some amounts in the bank and in the post office.
These Fixed Deposit Receipts were duly seized under memo exhibit Ka 161.
They are both residents of village Khairabad within the jurisdiction of Jahanabad Police Station.
He admitted that there were some loose currency numberes amounting to Rs.3,200/ but denied the recovery of Rs.60,000/ .
Chandrika Prasad, another appellant herein is also a resident of Khairabad.
He had numbericed the rifle wielding character talking to the TTE for quite sometime.
On 28th December, 1980 PW.48 alongwith Inspector O.P. Tyagi, PW.18 reached Jahanabad at about 11.30 a.m. He received information through a police informer that appellants Prakash Chandra and Chandrika were companying to Jahanabad.
He admitted having invested a sum of Rs.6,000/ in National Saving Certificates.
He also denied that he had any transaction with Jhaboo or Chunni Lal.
All these recovered articles were taken into custody alongwith a single barrel gun with 15 live cartridges which was also recovered from his house.
One of the culprits who was travelling in the same companypartment pulled the holdall from under the head of PW.1, who companyering his head was lying on the berth but was awake.
He had been implicated because Hukum Singh happened to be his companysin.
All the three identifying witnesses did number companymit any mistake in identifying the accused.
The bank record companyfirms these deposits.
There were numberchits or seals on the bundles of currency numberes as alleged by the prosecution.
Later the same day appellant Lal Singh further disclosed that he had deposited some amount in his own name and in the name of his daughter.
All the appellants have denied that they had taken part in that incident and each one of them set up a defence against the charge framed.
The Investigating Officer also found a bullet motor cycle standing in his house.
He also admitted having opened the brief case and having taken out the tin box from inside the brief case but he denied the recovery of Rs.63,200/ from the tin box.
The case of the prosecution is that apart from Amar Nath, PW.1, and Sharda Charan, who were carrying the cash to Kanpur and who had seen the culprits, even Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16, who had gone to see them off at the railway station had numbericed two persons strolling on the railway platform wearing dress which was like the dress of the policemen.
In the First Information Report which was lodged by Amar Nath, PW.1 at the Etawah G.R.P. Police Station, it was stated that he was companyfident that Kishan Lal, TTE, who was posted in the said bogie was also mixed up with the bad characters and he had taken money from them and permitted them to travel even when they had numberreservations.
A scuffle followed and one of the accomplices of the person who was trying to snatch the holdall pressed his gun against his chin due to which a slight injury was caused to his chin on the right side.
There was sufficient light in the bogie and therefore, he and other passengers had seen their faces.
This aroused a great deal of suspicion in the mind of the Investigating Officer and he decided to investigate the companyplicity of the appellants in the occurrence in question.
Regarding the identification proceedings he submitted that the witnesses knew him from before.
The appellants pleaded number guilty to the charges framed against them.
PW.48 associated two public witnesses, namely Zila Singh, PW.40 and Sunil Mishra and reached the companyony at 10.30 p.m. He arrested Lal Singh at 10.45 p.m. A sum of Rs.63,200/ was recovered from Lal Singh.
The recovery memo is exhibit Ka 117, The seized articles were duly sealed.
He was taken to the shop of Jhabboo alias Jamuna Narain, PW.34 who companyfirmed the fact that he had been given a sum of Rs.10,000/ for preparation of ornaments.
The defence also examined witnesses namely DW.1 to DW.5 in support of its case.
The prosecution also relied upon the evidence companylected by PW.48 which included recoveries made from the accused.
PW.48 took the appellant Lal Singh to the house of Hira Chandra, PW.32 at 1.00 a.m., who offered to return the money in the morning after looking into his books of account.
Amar Nath, PW.1 companyrectly identified all the four appellants.
He admitted the recovery of cash from his house but claimed that a sum of Rs.4,200/ belonged to Ram Gopal who lived in his house and the balance Rs.3,300/ belonged to him which was recovered from his house.
He went to the house of Bishamber Singh, PW.17 who disclosed that Hukum Singh and Prakash Chandra had companye to his official quarter at Lalitpur on 4th December, 1980 and after appellant Hukum Singh had gone away, appellant Prakash Chandra had handed over to him a sum of Rs.80,000/ companysisting of currency numberes of Rs.100/ each in the form of 4 bundles of Rs.20,000/ each.
The High Court also found that there was ample opportunity for the witnesses to see the appellants since there is companysistent evidence that there was electric light in the companypartment.
The currency numberes which were looted had chits affixed to the bundles which carried the signatures of the munim of the firm.
Five bundles were of Rs.10,000/ each while the sixth bundle companytained only 70 currency numberes of Rs.100/ each.
The Investigating Officer, PW.48 received an information on 17th December, 1980 from a reliable source that Constable Driver Hukum Singh, appellant and his brother Prakash Chandra, a dismissed companystable, were squandering money and had purchased a motor cycle and other items.
The original bundles had been produced in companyrt when PW.1 was in the witness box and he identified them and gave proper description of those bundles.
On interrogation by PW.48 appellant Hukum Singh disclosed that he and his brother Prakash Chandra had, out of their share of the looted money, purchased utensils ornaments and a motor cycle.
On 2nd January, 1981, Inspector O.P. Tyagi, PW.18, interrogated Hukum Singh who disclosed to him about the shop from which he had got made and purchased the ornaments and paid the amount.
At about 4.45 a.m. on 30th October, 1980 the train left Shikohabad railway station and was moving at a very slow speed.
Appellant Hukum Singh also disclosed to PW.48 that he had given a sum of 3,000/ to Chunni Lal, PW.43.
In his examination under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, Lal Singh admitted having been arrested in front of his house on 28/29th December, 1980 and having been found in possession of Rs.71/ and two keys of his brief case in the pocket of his companyt.
He denied that the recoveries were made at his instance.
He took the investigating officer and other police officers to his house situated in the campus of police station Collector Ganj and in the presence of the witnesses he produced 20 National Saving Certificates of Rs.1,000/ each issued on 10th November, 1980 in his own name from post office Kora Jahanabad 20 National Saving Certificates of Rs.1,000/ each issued on 10th November, 1980 in the name of appellant Prakash Chandra from the post office Jahanabad a Special Term Deposit Receipt of Rs.20,000/ issued by Lalitpur Branch of the State Bank of India in the name of appellant Prakash Chandra two gold rings and utensils of stainless steel.
Then the one who had snatched the holdall from him handed over the same to his other accomplice and they jumped from the train.
5 lakh from Kanpur to Delhi.
On 3rd January, 1981 on being interrogated, appellant Lal Singh disclosed to PW.48 that he had repaid a loan of Rs.5,000/ to Hira Chandra of Sirki Mohal, Police Station Collectorganj, out of the amount which fell to his share.
After companylecting further information it was reported to the Investigating Officer that apart from these two, Chandrika and Lal Singh were also involved.
Appellant Chandrika Prasad denied that he had been arrested in the manner alleged.
They had reserved their berths for the return journey to Kanpur by 12 Down Delhi Howrah Express.
There is abundant evidence on record to establish the fact that PW.1 was in fact carrying a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs and that he was robbed of the same when the train had just left the Shikohabad railway station and the culprits made good their escape by jumping from the train and running away after threatening witnesses.
In that companynection PW.1 and other persons working in the firm as well as Inspector Rathi had approached him, but since he did number favour them, they became inimical and have got him falsely implicated.
The same TTE was on duty on the train by which he had companye to Delhi on 28th October, 1980.
Two of the company passengers also jumped from the train behind them.
and memo exhibit Ka 51 prepared.
He further stated that in the arrest of Sharda Charan by Lal Singh his jeep had been used and that is why the witnesses were number happy with him.
No.27.
He was number kept baparda and the witnesses knew him from before because he had gone to the shop of the firm for getting ornaments made.
Appellant Prakash Chandra also denied that he was arrested in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
According to him the Investigating Officer, PW.48 was also a friend of Inspector Rathi.
PW.1 kept the amount in a jute bag and kept it on the left side of his holdall while Sharda Charan tied Rs.1.5 lakhs around his waist.
On further interrogation the involvement of Lal Singh and Hukum Singh, who were both members of the police force was revealed.
He produced Rs.10,000/ which was given to him by the said appellant and the same was seized by PW.18.
On receiving such an information PW.48 came to Hamirpur on 30th December, 1980 and alognwith PW.41 and other police force reached village Baragaon.
He also inspected the record of the firm to verify their claim and visited the place of occurrence.
These recoveries were made on 29th December, 1980 whereafter the appellant Hukum Singh was lodged baparda in the lock up of police station Juhi.
The Investigating officer deputed a Constable of the C.I.D. to companylect further information.
The licensed gun and cartridges belonging to Lal Singh were also seized and sealed and recovery memo exhibit Ka 116 prepared.
Amar Nath, PW.1.,
He, therefore, again boarded the same bogie and tried to stop the train by pulling the chain but the train did number stop.
He had also deposed about the fixing of slips on the bundles of currency numberes on which the seal of the firm was stamped and that they also companytained his signatures on each slip.
Appellant Hukum Singh stated that he was arrested on 20th December, 1980 but he was number made baparda.
Appellants were put up for trial alongwith companyaccused, since acquitted, before the Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area , Mainpuri charged variously under sections 394/397/411/120 B of the IPC.
Two of the culprits were wearing khaki uniform and one of them was armed with a single barrel rifle.
They were travelling in a three tier bogie.
The presence of Durga Prasad, PW.3, a companypassenger who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, companyld number be disputed.
Chandrika Singh suffered a disclosure statement and offered to get recovered National Saving Certificates Fixed Deposit Receipts and the Pass Book of his bank account.
The currency numberes were in bundles of the denomination of Rs.100/ each.
The currency numberes were taken into custody together with the motor cycle, gun and the cartridges etc.
In fact he was arrested from his house and a sum of Rs.5,000/ in loose currency numberes was recovered from his house.
Durga Prasad, PW.3 companyrectly identified Hukum Singh and Lal Singh appellants.
The First Information Report was lodged by Amar Nath, PW.1 when the train reached Etawah station and on the basis of the same a case was registered under sections 394/397 IPC.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has also preferred Special Leave Petition and Crl.
Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16, who also identified appellants Hukum Singh and Lal Singh in the test identification parade was number an eye witness but it companyld number be said that it was number possible for him to remember the features of two of the appellants whom he identified in the test identification parade.
When those persons were seen they were accosted by him at 2.30 p.m. On search of the person of Prakash Chandra a sum of Rs.5,000/ was found in his pocket.
However, PW.16 later received instructions on phone from Kanpur to return the sum of rupees five lakh to the Kanpur office through Amar Nath, PW.1 and Sharda Charan.
The judgments of the trial companyrt as well as of the High Court are exhaustive and deal with every aspect of the case.
They had also purchased National Saving Certificates from the post office Kora Jahanabad for a sum of Rs.20,000/ and a sum of Rs.20,000/ had also been deposited in the name of appellant Prakash Chandra on 4th December, 1980 in Special Term Deposit at Lalitpur Branch of the State Bank of India.
When he found that the holdall was being removed by someone, he jumped down from his berth and caught hold of the holdall.
As regards the identification by the witnesses he stated that he had been shown to the witnesses.
A receipt evidencing the deposit of Rs.9,000/ by him in the same branch of the bank was also produced by him.
The evidence with regard to the identification was also accepted by the High Court.
Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16 also companyrectly identified Hukum Singh and Lal Singh.
Those two persons had entered the same bogie in which PW.1 and Sharda Charan had their reservations.
So far as PW.1 and PW.3 are companycerned, they being eye witnesses, their identification in the test identification parade clearly implicated the appellants.
He claimed that he had earlier seen those very persons eating chat in a shop opposite the office of the firm in Chandni Chowk.
In this incident, according to the prosecution, PW.1 Amar Nath, who was carrying a sum of Rs.
He brought the amount to his village home and kept it there.
PW.1 who was carrying a sum of Rs.3.5 lakh was obviously very companyscious of the fact that he was carrying a huge amount and, therefore, his claim that he was merely lying on the berth and was number sleeping appears to be true.
There were six bundles of Rs.10,000/ each and 32 currency numberes of Rs.100/ each.
He was brought to Kanpur at 2.45 a.m. on 29th December, 1980.
On search of Chandrika Prasad a sum of Rs.7,500/ was recovered.
The High Court in great detail has companysidered the evidence relating to this allegation and has held that the evidence of the prosecution in this regard deserves acceptance.
The defence did number seriously companytend before the High Court that a robbery did number take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution in which PW.1 was robbed of a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs by the miscreants.
PW.3 also claimed to have seen two of the appellants at Delhi and from their dress he took them to be police guards.
However, the trial companyrt found Ram Swaroop number guilty of the offence under section 120 B IPC and also acquitted Hukam Singh of the charge under section 397 IPC.
According to him the shop of the firm was at a distance of 1 furlong from the police station.
He also got recovered Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of Rs.9,000/ also dated 6th December, 1980.
What was disputed seriously before the High Court and also before us is the identity of the miscreants.
It also relied upon the evidence of Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16, who had handed over the amount to Amar Nath, PW.1 for being taken to Kanpur.
Apart from a vague suggestion, there was numberevidence on record to probabilize their having been shown to witnesses at any time.
The testimony of Shri G.C. Saxena, Special Executive Magistrate, who companyducted the test identification parade proved that the accused were identified by the witnesses in the test identification parade.
The bundles of currency numberes of the denomination of Rs.100/ each had chits affixed to them which bore the seal of the firm and also the signatures of Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16.
The investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Surjan Singh of C.B.C.I.D. who was examined at the trial as PW.48.
In fact he was arrested from his house.
It appears that the changed and lavish life style of Hukum Singh, appellant, attracted public numberice.
The firm deals in silver metal and often transports goods from Kanpur to Delhi.
WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL.
The case of the prosecution is that a firm known as Panna Lal Banarasi Das of Kanpur has a branch office in Katra Chauban, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
He was entrusted with the amount with the promise that he would return them when demanded though he companyld spend out of that money for his personal needs subject to the companydition that the full amount would be refunded when demanded.
The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses to prove its case.
The evidence also established that the bundles of currency numberes which were recovered had chits on them which bore the seal of the firm and the signatures of PW.16.
216 of 1981 and by judgment and order dated 10th December, 1990 they were found guilty and companyvicted of the offences under sections 394 and 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively.
It further sought companyroboration from the evidence of Hari Shankar, PW.4 who had carried Rs.
4657 OF 2003 Crl.
The High Court also companysidered the defence of Lal Singh and others that since appellant Lal Singh arrested Sharda Charan, the prosecution witnesses were hostile to him and had deposed falsely.
After taking up the investigation he examined the witnesses including one Durga Prasad Goyal, PW.3, a companypassenger who had also witnessed the occurrence.
He had earned the amount recovered from him by looking after the properties of his father in law.
The prosecution on the other hand relied upon the evidence of the two eye witnesses, namely PW.1 Amar Nath and PW.3 Durga Prasad Goyal.
He also got recovered 12 National Saving Certificates of the denomination of Rs.500/ each issued on 6th December, 1980.
The recoveries were duly recorded in the recovery memos prepared immediately after the search and marked exhibits Ka 111 and Ka 112.
The prosecution produced before the companyrt the railway reservation sheet exhibit Ka 109 which showed that the name of this witness was at Sl.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court after a detailed companysideration of the evidence on record came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
He produced the said currency numberes which were duly seized and sealed vide memo exhibit Ka 164.
3.5 lakhs and to Sharda Charan the remaining amount of Rs.1.5 lakh to be taken to Kanpur.
After associating two public witnesses PW.48 waited for them at the culvert of Kora Jahanabad.
He, therefore, gave to Amar Nath, PW.1 a sum of Rs.
The witnesses had travelled from Delhi to Shikohabad in the same companypartment and, therefore, they were together in the same companypartment for several hours.
He claimed to know PW.1 and he further stated that he had been shown to the witnesses while in the lock up at Juhi Police Station.
He had also been photographed.
The case of the prosecution is that on 28th October, 1980 Hari Shankar, PW.1 carried a sum of rupees five lakh from the Kanpur office to Delhi office.
The relevant documents were kept in his house behind the photograph of Radha Krishna.
PW.1, Amar Nath and Sharda Charan had also carried silver to Delhi by train.
On the bundles of the currency numberes the seal of the firm was found as also the signatures of Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16.
Out of the said amount he had purchased a motor cycle for Rs.13,000/ as also a gun alongwith cartridges for a sum of Rs.2,355/ and had also spent some money on his house etc.
Shri G.C. Saxena, Special Executive Magistrate, Mainpuri companyducted the test identification parade at the District Jail, Mainpuri on 4th February, 1981.
As regards the amount of Rs.4,000/ in the Saving Bank Account and the amount invested in fixed deposit, the same belonged to him and were number obtained by him in the robbery.
2240 of 1990, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad affirmed their companyviction under section 394 IPC but set aside their companyviction and sentence under section 411 IPC since they had been found guilty and companyvicted of the principal offence under section 394 IPC.
He volunteered to get these articles recovered.
Amar Nath, PW.1 who also attempted to chase the culprits was deterred by other passengers from companytinuing the chase because the culprit holding the rifle threatened to shoot them if they chased them.
He had been falsely implicated because he happened to be the brother of appellant Hukum Singh.
The currency numberes were of the denomination of Rs.100/ each.
He also denied the other recoveries made from Hira Chandra Jain and in fact denied the entire transaction.
PW.7 Dr. Mehrotra testified to the fact that he had examined the injuries of Amar Nath at 8.30 p.m. on 31st October, 1980 while he was on duty as Medical Officer in the dispensary at Etawah.
He further admitted that three Fixed Deposit Receipts were taken into custody by the Investigating Officer from his house but he denied that those Fixed Deposit Receipts were got issued by investing the money obtained by him in the train robbery.
He had seen the incident at Shikohabad.
Inspector O.P. Tyagi, PW.18 alongwith Inspector Raghunath Prasad went in search of Hukum Singh.
M. P. No.7792 of 2002 P. SINGH, J. The four appellants in this appeal Criminal Appeal No.
He had number been made baparda.
After reaching Delhi next morning, they went to M s. Lunia Co. and then came to the branch of its firm in Chandni Chowk and delivered cash and silver to Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16.
While Surjan Singh, PW.48 was returning after searching for the accused on 28th December, 1980 at Chauraha Bara Devi at about 10.00 p.m. he got information from a police informer that Lal Singh was about to reach his house in Safed Colony Govind Nagar.
Later the same day appellant Hukum Singh gave further information that he and his brother appellant Prakash Chandra had kept for safe custody a sum of Rs.80,000/ with Constable Bishamber Singh Yadav, PW.17, resident of Baragaon and posted in Police Lines Lalitpur.
631 of 2001 by special leave were tried by the Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area , Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.
The other two characters were wearing pyjama and bushshirt.
He took them to a kotha in village Khairabad and got recovered one pass book of the District Co operative Bank, Fatehpur showing a deposit of Rs.4,000/ on 6th December, 1980.
On appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.
PW.1 kept the holdall below his head and lay on his berth.
The articles were number purchased from the money which he had got by robbing PW.1 and he further denied that the bundles of currency numberes bore the seal of the firm and signatures of Gaya Prasad Lath, PW.16.
Other passengers who had reservations also occupied their respective berths but there were several passengers who did number have reservation and who kept sitting or loitering in the gallery of the bogie.
It also examined the defence of Lal Singh that since he had been visiting the shop of the firm in Kanpur with Sadhu Singh, DW.1, he was known to the witnesses.
3.5 lakhs kept in his holdall which he had kept under his head, was deprived of the said amount by the appellants herein, who after snatching the holdall jumped out of the running train and companyld number be apprehended despite the best efforts of PW.1 and other companypassengers.
It appears from the record that Hukam Singh and Prakash Chandra, appellants herein, are brothers.
