1 CRA No.753 of 2003 2025:CGHC:33004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 753 of 2003 Lakhan Lal S/o Patiram Bhaina Age 30 years R/o of Kekrabhata, Thana, Baradwar, District: Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Baradwar, District:Janjgir- Champa, C.G. Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 15/07/2025 Heard. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12/05/2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 166/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 394 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- , with default stipulations. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.17 13:23:22 +0530 2 CRA No.753 of 2003 2. There were total 7 accused persons involved in crime in question and the subject trial was conducted for accused- Lakhan(appellant herein), Mohit Ram Chandra, Chitranjan Chandra and Tosh Kumar Sahu, wherein, except appellant herein, all three other accused persons have been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 166/1999. In the Sessions Trial No. 420/1999, Narendra Kumar Mishra was acquitted. Co-accused Soedha Bhaina still absconding. In respect of accused Komal Singh Chandra, a separate trial bearing S.T. No.218/2016 was conducted wherein he was convicted and for which, he preferred an appeal bearing CRA No.253/2016. The said appeal is also considered and decided today by passing a separate judgment. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02/02/1999 at about 14:45 to 15:30 hrs, Complainant Fekulal Kashyap, Kartikram Kashyap, Rameshwar Yadav, Assistant Teacher Kumar Singh Chandra were going to village in a vehicle bearing registration No.MP 26 E/8129 carrying Rs. 14,46,493/- from State Bank of India, Sakti to pay the same to the teachers. The said vehicle was being driven by driver Prabhakar Chandra. Out of the said amount of Rs. 14,46,493/-, about Rs. 90,000/- was kept in a separate bag for payment of salary to teachers of Raipura and the remaining amount of Rs. 13,56,493/- was kept in a box at the back of the vehicle. When they reached near Katia Naka in village Chitapadariya Road, three persons came on a motorcycle and after beating the driver, boarded in the vehicle. One person started driving the vehicle by sitting on the driver's seat and after taking the vehicle near the 3 CRA No.753 of 2003 drain, they threatened the Complainant and other persons and looted Rs. 13,56.493/- and during the robbery, one of the robber fired a firearm at the driver Prabhakar Chandra and injured him and the remaining two robberers were carrying sharp-edged weapons and after filling the money in a sack, they fled away on a motorcycle. When they were filling the money in the sack, another person also came on a cycle. The robberers threatened him and chased him away. After the robberers fled, Fekulal along with the said person, who was chased away by the robbers, went to the house of Sarpanch Kanhaiya Lal Sidar and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, when the Complainant Fekulal Kashyap went to Baradwar police station and gave information regarding the incident, the Baradwar police station registered the crime and took the case into investigation. During the investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded. From the spot, articles, clothes, box of tin, pieces of plastics etc. were seized and seizure memo were prepared. Two pieces of bullets taken out from the body of injured Prabhakar Chandra were seized and seizure memo was prepared. Injured Prabhakar Chandra was medically examined. The accused persons were interrogated and their memorandum statements were recorded. On the basis of memorandum of accused/appellant Lakhan Bhaina, Rs. 1,95,000/- was seized from him. Subsequently, he was arrested. Identification proceedings of the accused were conducted. A map of the scene of the incident was prepared by the Patwari. 4 CRA No.753 of 2003 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 70 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 12/05/2003 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There are dissimilarities amongst the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the same cannot be relied upon. He would further submit that there is no seizure of any incriminating article made from the appellant. He would submit that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has not been conducted properly, therefore, the impugned order of conviction is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside. In the alternate, learned counsel would pray for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. In support of his contention, he would prays reliance upon the decisions rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Nathu S/o Puralal Gurjer Vs. State of M.P. 2005 (3) MPLJ 162 and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Ajay @ Munna Vs. State in CRL.A.14/2016 decided on 16.06.2017. 5 CRA No.753 of 2003 7. Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, learned Dy. AG appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. PW-2 Rameshwar Prashad Yadav has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, he along with other, left for Sakti from Jaijaipur in a jeep/taxi at about 9:00. He stated that Kartikram Kashyap, Accountant of Jaijaipur office, withdrew Guruji's salary of Rs. 13 lakhs from State Bank of India, Sakti. They left for Jaijaipur in a taxi/jeep at about 1:30 in the afternoon. He stated that when they reached ahead of Baradwar and on the bank of the canal, a very loud sound was heard and dust was also raised there, so the vehicle slowed down there. After that, Feku Guruji and Guruji Kumar get down from the jeep to see the jeep. After that three persons came towards the jeep on a motor cycle, two of them made Kumar and Feku seated in the jeep. One person sat next to him and one person went near the driver and one person was near the motor cycle. The person sitting next to him was accused Lakhan. The person sitting near the driver's seat had an iron weapon in his hand. This witness further stated that accused Lakhan Bhaina had a bent sickle- shaped weapon in his hand. The person sitting in the driver's seat drove the vehicle across the canal, where there was some ground, from there he 6 CRA No.753 of 2003 turned the vehicle and brought it towards Baradwar. Near Baradwar, there is a kutcha road near the mango tree which goes towards Khamhariya. He drove the vehicle in the same direction and stopped the near the river, there both the above mentioned persons got down from the vehicle, the motorcyclist was some distance away, at the same time they started bringing the vehicle from Baradwar towards Khamhariya road, then accused Lakhan Bhaina said that if you do not give him the keys, he will kill everyone with his weapon. Subsequently, he gave keys to accused Lakhan, who took out the money from the vehicle and kept the money in a sack, and thereafter, they fled away from there. 10. PW-5 Prabhakar Chandra has also deposed in similar way that on the date when they had gone to Sakti for withdrawing the amount of salary of teachers and while returning from there, the appellant along with others looted the said amount. 11. Likewise PW-6- Kumar Sinch Chandra deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 02/02/1999, when they had come for taking the amount of salary of teachers at Sakti and after taking the said amount of salary, they had kept the said money in a trunk. Subsequently, while returning on the way, there was some blast type noise and they thought that the Tyre got flat, but Prabhakar Chandra, had sustained injury and blood was oozing. When, they were standing, one person carrying weapon came from right side and seated on the driver seat. Two persons were on motorcycle. Subsequently, while driving the vehicle, they took it to Khamhariya road, where they took the money out from the trunk and kept in the sack 7 CRA No.753 of 2003 and fled away from there. 12. PW-3 Kartikram Kashyap has deposed that on 02/02/99 they came from Jaijaipur to State Bank of India, Sakti and Rs. 14,46,493/- was received from the bank in Prabhakar's tempo. Out of that Rs. 90,000/- was kept in a separate bag for the teachers of Raipura and the remaining Rs. 13,58,490/- was kept in a box. Rameshwar gave Rs. 89,493/- out of Rs. 90,000/- to Hemlal. Keeping the remaining money in the box, they left at 02:10 pm for Jaijaipur. When they reached furlongs ahead of Basti Baradwar, they heard a bang on the road, so they thought that the tyre of the jeep had burst. After that Prabhakar stopped the jeep, at that time the first criminal came and removed the driver and sat in the driver's seat. A knife was also seen in his hand. From the other side of the vehicle, another criminal entered into the jeep with an eight to ten inch weapon and sat where the money box was kept. They turned the jeep back and brought it towards Basti Baradwar and the first accused drove towards Chitapadaria and he stopped the jeep near Katia Nala. After that the first and second accused took out the money from the box by keeping it in a sack bag. The third accused was following the jeep on a red coloured motorcycle. He parked his motorcycle at a distance of about 50-50 steps behind the jeep and came to the place where the taxi was stopped and fired another shot at the driver Prabhakar, due to which the driver was badly injured. After that all the miscreants fled away on the motorcycle with the money. After that Kumar Chandra went to the police station to report the incident. 8 CRA No.753 of 2003 13. Similarly, PW-1 Fekulal Kashyap in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 02/02/1999, they left for Sakti for taking the salary of teachers and while they were returning on the way, some blast type noise from the side of driver came and Prabhakar sustained some injury. The vehicle got stopped and subsequently, one person carrying a sharp edged weapon seated on the driver seat and another person who was carrying weapon get seated near the trunk of money and third person was on motorcycle. They took the vehicle towards Chitapadaria and looted the money. 14. Bare perusal of the statements of these witnesses, it is apparent that there are corroboration in their statements and it is established from their statement that on the date of incident, the accused person looted the money (which was being carrying for salary of teachers) and after keeping the said money in a sack, fled away from the spot. 15. The question emerges for consideration before this Court, whether the present appellant was involved in crime in question or not?. 16. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 8 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) provides for the things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. The same reads thus:- 17. “Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.- Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said done or written by any one of such persons in reference 9 CRA No.753 of 2003 to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.” 18. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that Section 10 has been deliberately enacted in order to make acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirator, because of the nature of crime. 19. In this regard, statement of PW9- Vikas Rajput has been brought on by the prosecution. He stated that he knows the appellant. He deposed that while he was sitting at chowk, he saw the appellant along with other co- accused came on motorcycle and stopped near the house of accused Lakhan. They were carrying a sack. He went to the house of accused Lakhan, as they were friend, but the door was closed from inside. Subsequently, he, after climbing on the wall, peeped inside the house of accused Lakhan. This witness has stated that he saw that accused Lakhan was taking out the bundles of notes from the sack. Subsequently, this witness came from there and narrated the incident to his father that accused Lakhan has kept lot of notes in his house and accused Komal and Sundha were also present there. 20. PW47- Umesh Sharma is a witness of memorandum and seizure. He deposed at para one of his statement that after the three-four days of the incident, he had gone to the spot of occurrence. He further deposed that 10 CRA No.753 of 2003 from three places, the police has seized the looted money. He has categorically stated that from the house of the appellant, hefty looted money along with motorcycle was recovered, whereas from the other accused, only money was recovered. He later on deposed that in his presence, memorandum statement was recorded and seizure was done. 21. From perusal of the statement of PW9, it is crystal clear that the present appellant along with other co-accused persons was present while they were taking out the notes bundles from the sack, which they looted. Further, it is also clear from the statement of PW-47 Umesh Sharma that notes were recovered in his presence from the house of the present appellant and he has supported the case of the prosecution. 22. It is well settled propositions of law that if, prima-facie, evidence of existence of a conspiracy is given and accepted, the evidence of acts and statements made by anyone of the conspirators in furtherance of common object is admissible against all. 23. Thus, from the entire facts and circumstances, it is apparent that accused Lakhan along with other looted the money from the vehicle and as such he was the part of conspiracy and was seen by PW9 when they were taking out the money from the sack and that money was also recovered, therefore, in the light of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the above acts categorically attributes involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy of crime. 24. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has completely proved its case beyond reasonable doubt 11 CRA No.753 of 2003 against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted by the trial Court, which do not warrant interference of this Court. Since the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment, the question of reduction of sentence does not arise in the instant appeal. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. 26. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 27. The appellant is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep/Gowri