The eighth point was a question of law.
The clinching evidence against the appellant was his thumb impression on the kunda of the cash box.
Phool Kumar was armed with a knife while Ram Kumar had a small gun in his hand.
The names of the three are 1 Phool Kumar, 2 Ram Kumar and 3 Dharampal.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd October, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
After briefly referring to the facts found against the appellant to justify his companyviction for robbery the point of law will be discussed hereinafter in this judgment.
It was companyclusively proved to be his on the opinion of the expert.
The latter two were acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Delhi for want of sufficient evidence against them.
One of the two eye witnesses had number identified the appellant at all at any of the identification parades and one of them indentified him tit the 4th or the 5th round.
One of the culprits, named Sube Singh, absconded.
The Delhi High Court maintained his companyvictions and sentences and dismissed his appeal.
The two eye witnesses to the occurrence are P.W. 13 Sham Lal and P.W. 16 Ram Sewan.
The appellant and his associates thereafter opened the door of the office, ransacked the drawers of the table and decamped with the money lying in the cash box, after pushing P.Ws.
13 and 16 in the office and bolting its door from outside.
13 and 16 was number found to be of a kind which companyld by itself form the basis of the companyviction of the accused put on trial.
He has approached this Court by special leave.
To terrorize P.Ws.
A companycurrent sentence of 6 months was also imposed for his companyviction under section 342 of the Penal Code.
He has been companyvicted under s. 397 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
The only person companyvicted at the said trial was appellant Phool Kumar.
After investi gation three persons were put on trial in the Sessions Court.
On being told that the keys were with P.W. 16 the appellant asked him to hand over the keys.
At the time of the occurrence both were discharging their respective duties as the employees of the Service Station.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Crl.
Mr. R. Bana, learned companynsel for the appellant took pains to submit as many as 8 points in support of this appeal.
C. Mahajan and M. N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The former asked P.W. 13 to hand over the keys.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In the night between the 8th and 9th September, 1966, to be precise, at about 1.45 A.M. on the 9th September, a daring robbery was companymitted at a petrol pump of the Gasolene Service Station on the Mall, Delhi.
13 and 16 Ram Kumar fired three shots in the air one of which struck the window panes of the office while the other two hit the ground.
87 of 1969.
Appeal No.
It is number necessary for us to mention the details of the information given to the police and the facts leading to the apprehending of the three culprits after getting the clue from the absconding accused Sube Singh.
62 of 1971.
The report of the expert was used as evidence by the prosecution without examining him in companyrt.
Bana, for the appellant.
585/ in cash after locking in the two attendants.
The robbers who are said to be four in number broke into the office of the Service Station and decamped with Rs.
The first seven points were companycerned with the assailing of companycurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below and do number merit any specific mention or detailed discussion.
P.W. 16 was working as a Salesman and W. 13 was employed as a helper.
The prosecution story as broadly told by them is that while they were sitting outside the office of the petrol pump two persons who were identified as appellant Phool Kumar and Ram Kumar since acquitted came there.
Suffice it to say that the evidence of identification in companyrt against the culprits given by P.Ws.
