Mohit Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010, passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal of the convict, and affirmed the conviction u/s 394, 120B and 411 of I.P.C., recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar.

Brief facts of the case are that, on 13.10.2008, Syndicate bank, branch Avdhut Mandal Ashram Jwalapur was robbed by four persons on the point of the revolver. They looted Rs. 13, 56, 190/-from the bank. On the report lodged on behalf of the bank, crime No. 429 of 2008 was registered at police station Jwalapur, and after investigation charge sheet was filed against present revisionist Mohit Kumar, one Ravi Kumar, Baljinder, Raj Kumar, Gajendra and Ram Viri. After recording evidence the trial court found that prosecution has successfully proved charge of offences punishable u/s 394, 120B and 411 of I.P.C. as against the revisionist Mohit Kumar and others accused namely Balvinder @ Baljinder and Raj Kumar @ Pandit. Accused Gajendra was acquitted of the charges and accused Ram Viri was found guilty of offence punishable u/s 411 and 120B of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence convict Mohit Kumar (present revisionist) sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-under section 394 of I.P.C., he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-under section 411 of I.P.C. He was further sentence to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-under section 120B of I.P.C. Aggrieved by said judgment and order convict Mohit Kumar filed criminal appeal No. 77 of 2010. The appellate court after hearing the parties concurred with the view taken by the Magistrate.

From the record it appears that in the Test Identification Parade revisionist was correctly identified before the executive Magistrate by PW1 Yashpal and PW3 Shobharam.

Having gone through the entire recordwhich was summoned by this court, no illegality is found in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, the revision is dismissed.