He companyfined P.W. 11 in a room bolting it from outside.
The appellant is companyvict ed under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that investigation was followed and the Police did number take prompt action and it is only out of the suspicion, the appellant has been implicated.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court.
32,936.84 and also caused injuries to him.
The accused was absconding and he was arrested in the month of January, 1977.
The A.S.I. reached the scene of the occurrence and he found Raghbir Singh company fined inside the room and he found traces of robbery and also found serious injuries on the person of Raghbir Singh.
One Kartar Nath numbericed Raghbir Singh and on the information given by him went and informed Sham Lal and in turn the Police was informed.
P.W. 11 Raghbir Singh was working as an Assistant Cashier in the same Corporation.
Sentences are directed to run companycurrently.
After companypletion of the investigation a charge sheet was laid.
The appellant was gunman in the Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation at Kapurthala.
The Doctor who examined Raghbir Singh found one lacerated wound on the left parietal region a reddish bruise towards the right eye and another reddish bruise on the back of left hand and also an incised wound on the front of terminal phalanx of right index finger.
The appeal preferred by the companyvicted accused was dismissed by the High Court.
5,000/ .
He is also companyvicted under Section 342, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.
Raghbir Singh raised a hue and cry after the appellant left the place.
Investigation was taken up.
The plea of the accused was one of the denial that he was falsely implicated.
It is alleged that on 22 10 1976 at about 8 p.m. the appellant robbed Raghbir Singh a sum of Rs.
