Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Both these appeals having arisen out of the same judgment dated 21.1.2004 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, so are being adjudicated together herein below.

2. Five accused persons, namely, Devi Prasad Bhatt (A1), Aditya Pandit (A2), Janardan (A3), Ritesh Sharma (A4) and Sushil Kumar Sharma (A5) were tried for the offences of Section 120B, 397, 394 IPC by the learned Trial Court and after the trial, the learned Judge found the crime proved only against Ritesh Sharma for the offence of Section 394, 411 and 120B IPC. He has appropriately been sentenced, while rest of the accused persons were let free by the impugned judgment. So, the convict Ritesh Sharma has challenged the impugned judgment by way of filing the Criminal Appeal No. 25/2004, while State has preferred Government Appeal No. 244/2008 challenging the acquittal of A1 and A2.

3. I have heard the arguments for and against and have gone through the merits of the impugned judgment.

4. The genesis of the prosecution case is that a huge cash amount to the tune of rupees 3.5 lakhs, which was of the Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, was plundered allegedly by these accused persons. Mahesh Kumar Grover, the Cashier of the Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, was transporting this much cash riding on his scooter with Devi Prasad Bhatt, a pillion rider. Devi Prasad Bhatt was also a Class IV employee of the Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank and the amount was withdrawn by Mahesh Kumar Grover on 1.2.1996 from the State Bank of India, Head Office, Dehradun. As they were coming riding on their scooter from the State Bank of India to Ganga Yamuna Gramin Bank, they were intercepted by three motorcycle borne accused persons and creating a terror by way of opening a fire by their country made pistol, they managed the scooter to be stopped. The cash was looted and the accused persons fled away. FIR was lodged by none other but the pillion rider of the scooter Devi Prasad Bhatt, who himself was found involved in the crime and thus was made the accused and the charge was also levelled against him.

5. On 24.2.1996, the police got an information from an unknown person regarding the arrival of A4 and A3 as passengers in some bus at the roadways bus stand, Dehradun and after getting down from the bus they had planned to go to the house of some Pandit. The police came into action and took Mahesh Kumar Grover with them. Mr. Grover identified both the persons, who were Ritesh Sharma and Janardan. They were arrested by the police and the cash inasmuch as rupees seventy thousand was recovered from the personal possession of Janardan and the cash of rupees ninety-five thousand was recovered from the personal possession of Ritesh Sharma. This cash was also identified to be that of the bank which was looted in the incident reported on 1.2.1996 as has been stated above.

6. The Test Identification Parade was conducted on 13.5.1996 where Ritesh and Janardan were rightly identified by Mahesh Kumar Grover. That apart, after collecting other relevant evidence, rest of the accused persons were also framed by the police and the chargesheet was also submitted against them.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel of all concerned and find that Devi Prasad Bhatt was made accused on the basis of a written paper depicting his extra judicial confession and this paper was handed over to the police by some person named Ratan Mani. That paper was not even proved and did not bear any signature. So, Devi Prasad Bhatt was let free by the Trial Court. I have not been persuaded to take a different view against the acquittal of Devi Prasad Bhatt in the appeal preferred by the State.

8. Aditya Pandit was named by Devi Prasad Bhatt and there was no other corroborative evidence submitted by the prosecution against Aditya Pandit. So, he was also left free. I have not been persuaded to take a different view against the acquittal of Aditya Pandit too in the appeal preferred by the State.