1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF NOVEMBER '2t)j;--1.cf)
THE HONBLE MR.JUi§TIC-Ee'N.A;-VANDA 7
CRIMINAL APPEAL Néxl 79/20.04
BEIWEEN: ' ._ ' . '
1. C.P.Bhimaiah @ C.P.Mohan 0
Age 30 Years. C / 0 Ashwini H0.u_S'e._
B.R.An1bedkar Nagai", _'
Dinne. Whitefield, Ba-r1ga_lo1'=e. 3
N/0. Marur Viilage .
Koppa Post,'.Mys'0re:DisLri_e3;. _ " "
2. Suresf1a"~E.{e(idj.¥:._@V BaIa1:rVish:1..31_H_ V
S/'0" Naga.;ina, A§:§e'd a'E3Qi1{ 30 Years
R}/V0. No.15?) 44_1:"cross_ " ~ __
Kaiidasa LayOe.R3ghéwen.dranaga1'
Banga}01'e. " ' ...APPELLANTS
(By Sri.M.Rajashekar. Advocate {Absentn
"""
V Sgate of' Ka_r1ia_t.aka
' By "B/{agfexdi Road' -Police Station
0 Bé§r12'a;ofe.0C=1¢?5; V . ...RESPONDENT
{B3r__S1″if_G;MA.§51;inivasa Ready. PICGP}
0′ TEf_1*}1s appeal is flied under section 374 Cr.P.C.. against the
jud.gme11t dated 07.02.2004 passed by the Fast Track {Sessions}
C’OLl’i_”.-I. Bangalore in S.C.N0.659/2000. eorlvicting the appeilants
and 2/accused I and 2 for an offence punishable under section
395 1-/W 397 IPC and ser1Ee11cf11g them to undergo RI. for 7 Years
44 and pay a fine of Rs.1.000/– each. in def}111it to Lmclergo RI. for 6
months.
=’3\j =~» aiéfik-‘~'”‘):;'(“>’\r
“Fhis appeal conimg on for final} hearing Cotiizr,
deiivered the following: . L” * T ‘
J U D G M.E”N–T¢
The appellants were arr’;iyed’.’_AdaJs :«?>1C#l.lS’eCf. _
{hereinafter referred to» ac(;’.1sed V
S.C.No.659/2000, onfthe file.ot;:A’E3ast-._VTracl{“($.€SSions} Courtt
I, Bangalore and thefitiere accused No.6 for
an offence punishat::le”‘:’tindertsselcdtlioni IPC. At this
juncture, it sheet was filed
against case was pending before
Com1nitt_sl_.AlA -3.’ to 5 8: 7 jumped bail and
absconded’. Jsgainst accused 3 to 5 & 7 was
separated. u*l.he” learned judge of Committal Court committed
‘ V’ . ‘case’ at}/’,”c}in’;~:..i; accused ll, 2 & 6 for the aforestated offence. The
acquitted accused No.6, convicted and
se.nte11t1.edl’.f5ccused 1 8: 2 for an offence punishable under
section 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction,
stcctised 1 & 2 have filed this appeal.
it ‘A 3K; <6'fi\'L.£:7\-'~'–»*3« "
,/l /7
r34,” {
2. The learned counsel for appellants/ is
absent. I have heard Sri G.M.SriniVas
for respondent/ State. In view’; of_i’he
Supreme Court, reported in h
of Dharam Pat & Others I/sh.’ ‘S;ateVtojf iftfar have
perused the records and ta11{é::.V’,y§§rq¢_V vidisposal on
merits.
3. In brief, theiease y_1’_s és;fo11ows:»
During PW2§VV._Venkatapathi Rao, PW3–
Mohiin erndhv’LFW4_?I\’!a1″xvesia–.__ were working as Cashier, Chief
Execut’iv.ep4’O1h’ce.rVend.uA1:erender respectively of Deepak Co-
operatiye .f3an};§”V”sit1jate at Rajajinagar, Bangalore. On
. . ” PW2 8: PW4 with a bearer’s cheque for
— drawn on Apex Bank at Chamarajpet
td..44¢nc;a.s~h_ :1f.£1Ae same and bring cash to Deepak Cooperative
I3a11k.».(§n that day at about 11 a.m., PW2 <3: PW4 encashed
_ ehceque, kept. cash. in a suit ease and they were returr1ing to
Deepak Co–operaIIive Bank in an autorickshaw driven by
accused No.6 to Rajajai.r1agar via Magadi Road. When the
-§-\J2 \ x,»;_..;.’-2o_w2 and ran towards
Lepro’sy”Iiotspitalliifiiisituate” onlltlflagadi Main Road. PW2, PW4
and lddother chasing accused No.1.
PWlmSathy_anarayana and PW5–Mahendz’a Babu, who were
p_r6cee_d1ng in”an …. autorickshaw from opposite direction
‘;caught”~holldvof accused No.1 along with a suit case
of Rs.6,00.000/–. Thereafter, PWI, PW2,
PW-13 and other public brought accused No.1 to Magadi
on “Road Police Station along with a suit case containing cash of
l”–VRs.’A€Ai,OO.O0O/m and handed over accused no.1 along with
“lsuitcase containing cash of Rs.6.00.000/m to PW10mShivappa.
Hadimalli (jtnvestigatillg Officer). PW2 &
suffered injuries at the hands of accused .
nearby hospital for t,reatn1c1″1t,A
informed the matter to Deebalg co;¢:p§’ra
other bank officials came tolll”‘ll/lla,gjadi Station.
PW2 3: PW-4 returnedzjtggi._1\/Iafgfadiit from the
hospital and thereafter was lodged by PW2
and a ca?/3.,’ fi’l3$:.’4f¢&;’i5té’r Accused No.1 was
arrested cash of Rs.6,00,000/~
was the information volunteered
by aclcusedy 4, 5 and 7 were arrested and
recoveriesllwere nlade. lfliccused no.2 & 6 surrendered before
t’he:’C:_Q1.nIiaj.ttal PVVIO seized illcrilmnatirag articles and
V ._a”–requisition to the learned Magist.rate for a
lrd_llrect.ion’lle:t.odconduct. test idcrltification parade. Accordingly.
test.~~ide;ntification parade was held, during which accused 1.
V 2 6 were identified by PW2 and PW4. After completion of
lgizwestigation. charge sheet was filed against accused 1 to ‘7
for afo1*est:at’ed offence. M
;¥.v\.; ‘ – /L L LL. ‘
4. During trial, PW1 to PWIS were
documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 J’
material objects as per B/1.0.1
contradictory portions in IE3} ‘of
PW4 were marked as Ex.D. 1 . V V.
5. The learned trialvJiidge5_Von;_atmreciiation of evidence and
on hearing learned coAL1.ns.e1.Vforv._pa1’t’ies’Vcenv’icted accused 1 &
2 for an 397 IPC and
acqui’ttteCi’-e.aic:cus:e§:i” eatending benefit of doubt. The
State”h&a’s<'_not against judgment of acquittal of
accusedVV'iNVo.8edAs A'-a1:1*ea'dy stated, this appeal is filed by
av_c'é:used 1x 63: 2AAaga.in.svt_judgn1ent of conviction.
'V'Vu£t'LI:'é":L1I]1SJ['c1I'lC€iS. the points that wouid arise for
d.ete1"rn§.na ti. on are: —
[liviwhether the prosecution has proved that on
36.12.1998 between 12.15 p.m. and 12.20
p.m., [afternoon] near Binniston Road/Magadi
Road, Bangalore, accused 1 (‘S1 2 along with
absconding accused 3 to 5 8: 7 committed
/:
(I{;(-‘ 1 ”~ 6’ L
dacoity of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- ‘7’
a suit. case from possession….,oi”=.u
V.Venkatapat.hi Rao by causing.g1″i–evousV:injziryv’
to PW2 and simple injuiyzfito
accused 1 & 2 COI’I11I3i’Vt{-f,'”(Zi an “offence punitshahlei
under section 397 IPC’?v.
(2) Whether the ie_a”rned.’_: has properly
appreciated evidence ‘_
(3) Whether”‘«p:.Vpt,he giimpuginedTjjtidgnéent calls for
inté.%rfe1rence’?—- . if d d
7. The’pro’secut’ion”!?ia.s:.’i’eiied on the evidence of PW1, PW2,
‘PW3:Mohan_. Chief Executive Officer of Deepak
. ” C’od¥ope’r:ative.__Bank has deposed that he had sent PW2 & PW4
a sum of Rs.6,00,000/– to encash from
‘ E’ Er’, L1′; “”.r”C’>v{.«’z.€’i”‘-ii
Ap–e__x at Charnarajpet. The defence has sought to
” the evidence of PW3 on the ground that
.AA11eced.ssary dOCL1I13€f1I.S viz cheque drawn by the bank and
:=ft:at,en’1ent, of accounts have not been produced before Court.
The first informatioii lodged against accused, allegiiag M
g\_); k x. 1
commission of dacoity was with a V1€’W up
misappropriation committed by PW3 and
the bank. This defence is preposteroL’1s;”
misappropriation in the bank .
possible to comprehend as howjttthis
could be Conceaied by conc’oe”ti’ng_Va dacoity, more
particularly a sum Hdacoity was
recovered and creditedppto
8. The of {St {3WT4’tha’t after encashing the
cheque __forV’i’a.V-«.s_t;Im”«oi”v..Rs.6,0O,O0O/– in Apex Bank at
Chamaifajpet,’they”dkept’–«entire cash in M.O.4~Suit Case: PW2
was “hoIdir{g..S1«jitV”case and PW4 accompanied him; PW2 8:
an autorickshaw driven by accused No.6: the
V a_iutoi?.ic1{.shawV’proceeded towards Deepak Cosoperative Bank
si1,;}1’c1t’_€~ Rajajinagar via Magadi Road has not been
controtre1’ted. The eviclence of PW2 8: PW-4; that accused No.6,
_ ‘who was driving autoriokshaw while proceeding on Binny
5IVIilI Road. took a deviation towards Binniston Garden Road,
PW4 caught hold accused No.6 and made him to stop
-KR if-‘L “‘”€Er”»
auiorickshaw has not been controverted. The evidence of
these witnesses relating to participation of accused_”‘–._l”‘–& 2
along with absconding accused in c0I1’imissi0n’of dae:f)’ityj””and..
apprehension of accused No.1 PV’Ji5_’;v.assault–VQ’n»_
PW2 & PW4 by accused N10-2::}’:'(‘flO€:-‘S.
discrepancy. V ‘ vé V d V ‘V
9. At this juncture, is state” & PW4
did not have accused 1 <3: 2 to
falsely implicate them';'"besides'<_PidK2 had suffered
injuries ,_WnviVc;'n.31asibeenvdeptased by PW6–Dr.Kiran & PW?'-
Dr.T.S'ee_n'appaL"– V V dd
19}. .v I;wswDi<.._i_:i£an had examined PW4–1Via.hesh at 12.30
_26.{_i2.l998 in Tejas Nursing Home at Rajajinagar,
A . ai:id*:"found following injury:–
' .Lacerat.ed injury measuring 3" X 1/2" over left side
a 1' back of scalp
PW6 has opinion above said injury was simple in
_;%naiu1'e and it could be Caused by i\/1.0.3. /
: L 'L \."—-'(;\
"be_riai1sed if a. person was assaulted with M.O.3. -7 ,
.,..-9;. x L. 'L x »
11. PW7~Dr.T.Seenappa had examined PW2–
V.Venkatapathy Rao at about 1 p.m., on 26.12..j’l’9»98 in
Thejas Nursing Home situate at Magadi Road,
found following injuries:– ll
I. Swelling present over :’u”ln’ar.
forearm over lower’
tenderness presenttbrepitus .__ felt,
mobility present. l h’ V
11. Left leg swelling _left lateral
__ of leg, defusing nature,
‘ tei1de1’ness’
4:11}, left? lorearrn with wrist shows
lraeturelollllulna lower third.
opined injury No.1. which had resulted in
l’r”a.c:tt1_re’ ulnar was grievous in nature and injury No.2
_ was llsirrlple in nature. PW?’ has opined injuries 1 :31 2 Could
.\.\j
11
Soon after taking treatment, PW2 & PW4 reached
Magadi Road Police Station, by which time, PW3arid»_io.ther
bank officials had arrived there. At this
necessary to state that accused No.1, who”na§:i~ ,snat”c.he:i a’ . 1
suitcase containing cash of “*I1the
possession of PW2 was caught rediihanded.
and other members of when no.1 was
running towards hosnitai. PW2 <3:
PW4 cried for he1p accused No.1
along ‘with_o”{;her::f;eubIic,&V’At ih”ai”‘tin1e, PW1 81 PW5, who were
trave:l’ling’_ in from the opposite direction.
caught v.acc:-used along with a suitcase. In the
nieanwiziive PW2 «&____1?W4 and other public reached that place,
‘ ;Val1_o«.f_the.ni”viook accused No.1 along vxdth a suit case
1″ ‘~c.oi1’taiiii’iig ;;;:sh of Rs.6,00.000/– to Magadi Road Police
Station’ and handed over accused No.1 and a suit case
czontaiining cash of Rs.6.00,000/– to PWiO–Shix/apps
Vfiadiniaiii [Investigating Officer). PW2 lodged first
‘inforniatioil as per E3,x.P.2 and a case was registered against.
— 12
accused No.1~C.P.B]:1imaialr1, accused No.2~Sures]:1’___Recldy,
accused No.3~Rajesh. accused No.4~auto driveri~.an:d’~V.Vtwo
others. i in it
12. At this juncture, it: is relevant to
took place at a distance of two
police station. The first ,i’n–{orma’u’on’ wars
26.12.1998 at 1 pm. (afternoon). iritiestigaiiing Officer
arrested accused No.’]:_a’n.d ._sui’t«case containing cash
ofRs.6,OO,OOO/V~ L1nderV_av”nc1a’l5;’aaaVr’ it
13. 8; PW4 regarding apprehension of
accused 2 No.1 Vaiong,_:witi’1 a suit case containing cash of
Rsf’s,ojo,oVoo/m””by..__9w1 & pws and other public is fortified
‘ from that accused No.1 was produced before PW10
“(irwdestigatingVOffice1-} along with a suit case containing cash
ofk’Rs”;v§,OO:,0OO/~. The evidence of PW2 and PW4 that
“accused No.1 was caught red handed with a suitcase
Vcbontaining cash of Rs.6.0{),0OO/~ is consistent and credible.
‘”i’I’he injuries stiffered by PW2 «St PW4 at the hands of accused
‘\; L ~.
– 13
No.2 would lend corroboration t.o the evidence of PW2 <3: PW4
that they were returning to Deepak Coeoperativejfianiéiafter
encashing cheque for a sum of Rs.6,00,00Qf:.-
took place when they were traVe.l1i_I1g m""an~§.gui;cr;ci;sha§x2»_
driven by accused No.6 near Binlnistori on :1{\/Vlill
Road. . 'V l I l l
14. It is seen from the eyiderice of l Ir'”‘\’lf:I”Vt.:half§l’1€ has not
completely supportedtlae ease.l.ol’:pi’os’ecntion: ‘l”he evidence
of PW1 at the relevantV:’tirnelV__lat1ld & PW5 were
travelling in an .a_utor’ick”shaw.’and they saw a person running
with asuilt case. toWard”s._then1 from opposite direction and he
wagubeingl chased lbyv 25 to 30 persons; PW} St PW5
thavtllllplerson and found a suitcase held by him
Therefore, PW}, PW5 and other public took
h.iin to Magadi Road Police Station does not suffer from any
discrepancy. PW} has not identified accused No.1 before
Therefore, evidence of PW} to the extent that a person.
?was running with a suitcase and was apprehended by PW}
& PW5 and other persons of public and he was taken to
,4’
—- 14
Magadi Road Police Station is consistent with the-_.._case of
prosecution.
15. It is seen from c1~oss~exan1InatIon of PW-xi ‘
reasons to halllheartedly suppo_rt….the case”sof.fproSe_euiIQn:2.
During cross–exarninatioI1, PW1 :”:ha£{_:’adniitted
visited Deepak Co~operat1ve_ ‘B_ankt”to’t:rece1Vé’
and concerned bank officia1s§V:’_t:o’i¥fe1’ed a security
guard, PW1 not satisi”ied”wAitAh left the job.
16. v’P’W’«Ie:Pj:avtn;§”*ap’pre-headed’ accused No.1 aiong with a
suit case :Rs.6,00,000/ –, which admittedly
belongedito vt’he-_bank’«..hVad high expectations and he was
ofi’§:red”a, job to’t”‘seVc_1,i1rity guard in Deepak Cowoperative Bank.
‘ 1 ..had*tI.h’ou_ght that he was the sewer of situation and he
i. = o’rei.?ented’VDeepak Co~ope1*ative Bank from losing a sum
oi;44’Rs.’€,VOO;t)00/~. PW} expected the bank to reciprocate him
in.__avV”‘befitting manner. On the other hand, PW} was
appjointed as a security guard in the said bank with a lower
“sa1.ary. Therefore, PW}. who was not satisfied with
c
3\r . ‘K, x» I ~ 6-‘ ,= c,
& s’u.itca’se containing’
15
reciprocation of the bank, left. the job. Yet fact rerna.i_ns, the
evidence of PWI that PW1 & PW5 apprehended
with a suit case containing Rs.6,O0,OOO/–_.ua–ndAijthiereafietr,
accused No.1 was handed over toJMa_gadi _R”oad’Ai?c1ic’cVit-3ta’tion’ .
is consistent with the case of prosecu’tioi*1.
17. PW5~Mahendra ttigtijxrerlcu ahouti
apprehension of accused at suit case
containing cash of has stated that
accused No.1 was ru.r1’1’1in;£_{‘ along withaaftsuitcase. PW5 has
identified. sui”i;casei with-.,.__which said person was running.
‘Ii’hough,_e<Vi,denc.eV identification of accused No.1
. V it
is half-hearted,"yetflfiict remains accused No.1 along with a
L,
cash of Rs.6,00,000/~ was caught red
over to PWIO {Investigating Officer} in
N Police Station. during afternoon of 26.12.1998.
AA 18. it 8: PW-4 have given consistent evidence about
it No} snatching a suit case containing cash of
Rs.6,00,000/~ and running from place of incident and his
3\,? C*'«£:-(I \ K. '"1 V"-(F
z
.- 16
apprehension by PW}, PW5 and other public. '.FEé.eV_:eyiidence
of PWIO regarding arrest of accused No.1
suitcase containing cash of Rs.6,00,000/_-is-
credibie.
.19. As already stated, .”co_r_ne.oUzt a ‘theory.
PW3 and other officials of th.e-~.b:ank”hAad corzevocte-‘d a case of
dacoity to cover up misappropriation b
20. As regards_”eVider;ce~’: of PW-4 they boarded
auto}r’icb}'{si1ea.i:}4r_ accused No.6. The presence of
accused: of incident has not been
controVert’e.d.” azficused No.6 has been acquitted and
S..’Li3:€6 .__I10t l;iV1’e’d—-anappeal against judgment of acquittal of
‘ Therefore. there is no need to refer to
“evidence’:5.;dd.uced by prosecution against accused No.6.
21. ” regards presence and participation of accused No.2
V’ ciornmissioii of dacoity, we have evidence of PW2. PW4 and
evidence of PW8 regarding test identification parade
conducted by PW8. PW2 had icient;ified accused No.2 in test
|§..\f . x M -15: L “~—“– ‘(‘)’C;{‘-4
~ 17
identification parade and PW2 has deposed thatgiceused
No.2 pulled him out of autorickshaw and assaulted
an iron rod on his left hand. PW2 has
identified accused No.2 in test iden.t.ificatio’n”paifiadeii if
22. PW4 has deposed that acc’tt&se%1′
head with an iron rod. Ti’1;.’_'<.f€3..'is llsO1fIV:l€ indtiie
evidence of PW4 regarding iVdenti_fic.ation.'of No.2 in
test identification PW8, however
evidence of PW8 thatv,PV'-.?2:& accused Nos.1 81
2 in i;e_st' ideritification-parade does not suffer from any
disc1'epancy.
2.3}. if The defence has sought to discredit evidence of PW2 «Si
identification of accused 1 8: 2 before Court.
._ delay in holding test identification parade.
notice from the records, the incident took place on
25.121998 and accused 2 8: 6 surrendered before the
Con1nzit.tal Court. on. 04.01.1999 and they were taken to
‘T police custody on 05.01.1999. The investigating Officer
18
(PWl.0] had made an application to hold test. identification
parade. Accordingly. test. identification parad’e.”Was:V’i1eld.V_’on7é
29.01.1999. ~
25. PW8–K.N.Ran1anjanappa in”-his’_A_AeVide1’xce’
that PW2 & PW4 had iden_[t’i£1.ed laccnsed it] tested
identification parade and of test
identification parade _& PW4 had also
identified accused Nofyiii test ‘identilfication parade.
26. is hteiei/ant to state that accused
N01 along with a suitcase
containin9gwcashVV’of Af_\’sL’G.9l()0,00O/~, which he had snatched
ha11ds”o’E’–P«’vV2. As already stated accused no.1 was
and he was handed over to
Hadixliarii {Investigating Officer} in Magadi
Road ‘Police Station. in the circumstances, there was no
2 it need for PW8 to hold ‘test identilicat.ion parade relating to
“.i.dentificat.ioI1 of accused No.1. Therefore, test. ideiitifictation
H parade held by PW8 to Identify accused no.1 was rather
W .,
I’ L 3”-‘a..
redundant. PW2 81 PW4 had suffered injuries 21tVi’:aeii.d’s..of”
accused No.2. The occurrence took place in a
The incident of dacoity had takerrpiace :’_i11e;§rpieVcjtediy§’e.thatb
too in a broad daylight. when
Deepak Comoperative Bank aloéfrg with a suitcvasevcontaining’
cash of Rs.6.O0.O0O/7. Therefore.._evide11ce’of PM?/’2 81 PW4
regarding identification before the Court
cannot be discrA(~:–d_ited,ynotvrithstaiiding .c&e’i9t;ain discrepancies
in the eyidencieidierelatinge tic» itestdiidentification parade.
T identification of accused No.2 by
PW2 is:codrisisterit.iwith the case of prosecution, so
aiso_t11eirievid’cnce_ t1A1–atV’t’hcy were assaulted by accused No.2
” ‘~ Eli::J[“;i:1€3(j.iII.it?: of incic’.—e-I-1t’ cannot. be suspected.
’27.” 1 accused No.6, the iearned trial Judge has
‘ac_t:juitt.ed’hVi:n by extending benefit of doubt. that there is no
incrimmatirlg material against. accused No.6 to prove that he
Ayliiadeentered into agreement with other accused to commit,
Vidacoity. As already stated accused 3 t.o 5 81 ‘7 absconded
when the case was pending before cornmittai Court. Thus
2 0
from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 <3: PW5 it is that
on 26.12.1998 between 12.15 p.m. and £2.20
PW2 & PW4 were traveiiing in e~inA»Vai;t;or.iei{s"ha\p- 'iii-iifzgrl * 2.
accused No.6 along with a subitcase"ioontaining casidfliof
Rs.6,00,000/~. accused 8: 2* folioxwfiedAf_t}1–em–'; on
scooter. When autorickshaW_.I?eVa'che»d near"«Bi_n11i_ston Road/
Magadi Road, accuse'd:rh].A 3;. ; éinfrqiijizded PW2 & PW4,
accused No.2 assau1ted"PW2Vand_ an iron rod and
caused a P\_N'V2j-an'd:'aV'simp1e injury to PW4,
accused" a 'suitcase containing cash of
Rs.e;oo,ooo/Lvj-5;-om "iv._1-*w2,- later accused No.1 was
apprehended ibyi *I5AV'_7%_14"—..gi'rid'. PW5 and handed over to the
1nVest.igai4i'I';g_VVOffieer*.(I5WiO) in Magadi Road Police Station.
iniuijies suffered by PW2 81 PW4 are mentioned in the
.2 j"\VQliIfid.Qt3lj£I'fi§TaE€S marked as ZE3x.P.6 8: Ex.P.7. The X-rays as
. 'perx -'*'Ex.P.9 would reveal that PW2 had suffered
fracture Ajleft ulna at lower third. PW4 had suffe1'ed a
siniplveiinjury. The evidence of PWI.2wSyed Gous discloses
" that on 37.02.1998 at 9.00 p.m. his aut.o1'ic}:shaw bearing
T\: C V V 5"' """LiL.- 4
22
28. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of
evidence has held accused 1 <3; 2 guilty of ari'.."'€)jffence
punishable under section 397 IPC. The learned._Jtri.'ale:'§§udge
having regard to place and manner in xvhich otffencei'eIas'«…
committed and conduct of accu'sed"1« 2.ya.t"'the t'in1e"1of 7.
incident and after the incident ar__1d':als0 bearing iirmiild
minimum sentence of iinp"1"'is0nment' r_fo__r offence
punishable under section 397' IPC has sentenced accused 1
& 2 to undergo rigorous;'impri'sonrnent for seven years and
pay t_ieeV'"e_(~Ret.l1;ooe.,1__– – each with default sentence of
rigorousLirnprisonitient"wfoiiiisix months. As the learned trial
J1,1jC'1gC_. has imposed mandatory minimum sentence on
2 forman offence punishable under section 397
I it elPCi§x, n11ot__t"§'nd any reasons to interfere with the sentence
imposed trial Court. I
n VG e at
29. In the resuii, I pass the f0110wing:–
The appeal is dismissed.
confirmed. Office is directed. _tt()~,S€I1d.’i)aC}{ _ré£:0fc1S” ‘aiiohg with
a copy of thisjudgmeilt.
Sci/*
TUDGE
SNNV, = ‘