1. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court No. 22, Bulandshahar, in Session Trial No. 929 of 2005 (State Vs. Naresh @ Fauji) in Case Crime No. 80 of 2005, under Section 412 IPC and in Session Trial No. 985 of 2005 (State Vs. Naresh @ Fauji) in Case Crime No. 86 of 2005, under Section 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar, convicting the appellant Naresh @ Fauji for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 412 I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment and for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 25/27 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for six months additional imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted for the charges under Section 395 and 397 IPC. Coaccused Jafar @ Jafaru, Anvar, Ikram and Naved had been acquitted in Session Trial No. 210 of 2006. All the above referred three session trials were decided by a common judgment.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

4. An FIR was lodged on 3.5.2005 by PW-5 Mukesh Gupta, Manager, Punjab National Bank, that on 3.5.2005 bank officials, Vishnu Dayal, Cashier along with Jai Singh and Gaurd Soran Singh were coming to Anup Shaher after taking Rs. 10 Lakhs from Deputiganj, P.N.B. Branch in a Maruti Van No. DL-3C R-3744. In the afternoon at 12.15, when vehicle reached near Jugshana Brick-Kiln, a Maruti Car having No. HR-51 S-3795 and one Motorcycle bearing No. DL-555-4013 upon which miscreants were seated overtook the Maruti Van and then Van was looted by them. All the miscreants were armed with weapons. When Guard Soran Singh fired in the defence, then Soran Singh was got injured by the miscreants. Miscreants fled away from the place of incident with the looted money along with D.B.B.L. Gun, One Mobile of Jai Singh leaving behind their Maruti Car.

5. On being informed, complainant reached upon the spot. Injured Soran Singh was sent to District Hospital Bulandshahar for treatment. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons narrating the details of looted currency.

6. During the investigation appellant in his confessional statement, who was detained in a case under Section 25 Arms Act in the Police Station, revealed his complicity and on his pointing Rs. 1,22,000/- and D.B.B.L. Gun was recovered.

7. Coaccuseds who were arrested in a case under Section 307 IPC along with other sections also confessed their involvement in the matter and one mobile looted from Jai Singh was also recovered from the house of Ikram on his pointing out. As many as 13 witnesses were produced by the prosecution side whereas for the purposes of this trial only the statements of PW-6 S.I. Banwari Lal and PW-7 Inspector A.K. Verma are relevant.

8. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nothing was asserted by the appellant although it was stated by him that a defence will be given but no defence was provided by him.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not named in the FIR and certain recovery is said to have been made on the pointing out of the appellant. It is also contended by the learned counsel that no witness of spot was taken in the recovery process and the bank officials who are said to be with the police personnel at the time of recovery, did not support the recovery. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that appellant was implicated with ulterior motive and for claiming to have solved the sensational cases by police. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even if case is accepted to be proved, then charge under Section 412 IPC is not made out against the appellant and utmost a charge under Section 411 IPC is made out, because the charges under Section 395/397 IPC were n