Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 195 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1997 passed by Sri B.K. Sinha, Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 273/95. ************ Birendra Sharma @ Birendra Singh, S/o Tokhan Singh, Resident of Jamshedpur Bhalu Basa, Police Station-Sitarampur Dera, District- East Singhbhum. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mrs. I. B. Pandey, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 273/95 by a judgment dated 30.06.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 12, Sukhdeo Raut who was the Branch Manager of UCO Bank is that on 13.09.1994 at about 1.15 hours two youths in the age group of thirty years entered into the premises of the bank and on the point of revolver collected currency notes in a hand bag and attempted to flee away. However, a mob gathered at the place of occurrence and chased the miscreants and apprehended both of them. The money which they had looted was also recovered from their possession. 2 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined thirteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 12 Sukhdeo Raut is the Branch Manager and informant whereas P.W. 11, Kamakhiya Singh is the then Branch Manager. P.W. 1, Rajendra Sah, P.W. 4, Beer Singh Sardar and P.W. 8 Nand Kishore Pd. had been tendered for cross-examination whereas P.W. 9 is a seizure witness who has been declared hostile. P.W. 10 is a formal witness. The rest of the witnesses are bank staffs have supported the factum of occurrence. 4. P.W. 12 who is the informant had stated that on the date of occurrence two miscreants entered into the bank premises and on the point of revolver collected currency notes from the counter and also took two officials to the strong room and forced them to open the shelf then they collected currency notes in their bags. When they raised alarm after about eighteen minutes and rang the emergency bell all the customers and staffs started to raise cries about the occurrence. The public gathered there and saw the miscreants fleeing away at which two miscreants were apprehended whereas the third one succeeded in escaping. The two youths were beaten up by the mob and currency notes worth Rs. 8,21,395/- was recovered from their possession. 3 5. Similarly P.W. 11, Kamakhiya Singh also stated that two miscreants had forced themselves inside the bank and on the point of revolver collected the currency notes from the counter as well as from the strong room and fled away. However, the general public gathered on alarm raised by the bank officials and chased the miscreants at which two of them were caught by the mob and were beaten up and third one fled away. 6. P.W. 13 also supported the factum of occurrence and that the appellant was caught in an injured condition since after the occurrence. P.W. 1 Ashok Kumar Sinha, P.W. 3 Bimal Kumar Gupta, P.W. 5 Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, P.W. 6 Bhagwan Dut Jha and P.W. 7 Shambu Pd. Singh all officials of the bank testified to the fact that two miscreants entered in the bank looted the money which was lying in the bank and later on they were apprehended on chase and money was recovered. 7. On a fair evaluation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution there is no manner of doubt that in fact the appellant was one of the miscreants who have forced himself in the bank premises and had forcibly collected the money lying in the bank and while he was attempting to flee away had been caught by the general public. 4 8. In view of such cogent and trustworthy evidence there is no scope for interference with the conviction of the appellant. 9. However, the Counsel for the defence points out that only three accused persons were said to be involved in the occurrence and therefore the conviction under Section 395 IPC was legally untenable. I am inclined to accept the proposition. 10. In view of such, the conviction of the appellant is converted to one under Section 394 IPC. The appellant has been in custody for about four years during trial so the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him during trial. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 13th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-