J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) THE Trial Court handed down a verdict of guilty and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- failing which the appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 396 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each for offences under Sections 395 and 397 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each failing which he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under both the above said sections. It was further ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently and the appellant will get the benefit of Section 428 cr. PC. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case swirls around a country made liquor shop, situated in Kirti Nagar, owned by Delhi Govt. The Delhi Govt. gave this shop to a contractor. On 06. 10. 1998 at about 9. 30 p. m. the shop was going to be closed. The cash was put in the locker. Inderjeet Singh, Salesman and Chunni Lal, helper went outside the shop. Satpal, Maan Singh, Sunil Kumar, Sripal started closing the door from inside and were about to come outside from the other gate. When they lifted the shutters, 5/6 hooligans came there, who were equipped with country made pistols. They snatched away the keys from Inderjeet and Chunni lal. One of the hooligans fired in the air. Remaining four started throwing liquor bottles on them. Another hooligan fired at the back of Inderjeet and appellant Ahsaan fired at the left thigh of Sripal. Consequently, Sripal and inderjeet fell down. Card box containing liquor bottles fell on Ahsaan due to which he fell down unconscious. One of the hooligans gave a butt blow on the head of Chunni Lal. An alarm was raised. Eight/ten persons arrived there. Other hooligans vamoosed from the spot. Police reached the spot, nailed appellant Ahsaan who was lying unconscious at the spot and recovered the pistol which was lying by his side. Inderjeet Singh succumbed to his injuries. The doctor opined that he died due to fire arm injury. Appellant Ahsaan was got medically treated. Ahsaan was discharged from the hospital on 10. 10. 1998. Other hooligans took it on the lam and were never heard again. Inderjeet Singh succumbed to his injuries. The doctor opined that he died due to fire arm injury. Appellant Ahsaan was got medically treated. Ahsaan was discharged from the hospital on 10. 10. 1998. Other hooligans took it on the lam and were never heard again. ( 3 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant made three short submissions. He pointed out that accused Ahsaan has been falsely implicated in this case. He explained that Ahsaan was found unconscious at the place of occurrence. He contended that no specific role was attributed to him. ( 4 ) THIS argument cannot stand scrutiny even for a fleeting moment. The prosecution examined 25 PWs in all, out of whom Satpal, the complainant PW2, sunil Kumar PW4, Maan Singh PW5, Sripal PW11 are the eye witnesses. Their testimonies chime in with the prosecution story. All of them have pointed out their accusing finger at the accused. The witnesses stood their ground and did not move an inch. There is nothing to show that their action is malafide or stems out of an ulterior motive. Despite a qruelling cross-examination their testimonies could not be shaken. Their evidence is too overwhelming to be discarded. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out even a single flaw in their testimony. ( 5 ) THE prime reason which proves the presence of the appellant on the spot is that Ahsaan was found lying unconscious on the spot. The counsel for the appellant did not deny his presence on the spot. I have perused the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The defence set-up by him is that of simple denial. He admitted that at the time of his arrest he was unconscious. He alleged that he has been framed in this case. He explained that as a matter of fact Satpal, Chunni Lal, Sunil Kumar, Mann Singh hatched a conspiracy to loot the cash of their own shop. He explained that he is not a member of their gang. According to him, he was heavily drunk and fell unconscious. They took advantage of his condition and he was falsely involved in this case. He explained that Sripal also sustained injuries because of quarrel. He could not say how did he receive injuries. He denied having any fire arm. He explained that he is not a member of their gang. According to him, he was heavily drunk and fell unconscious. They took advantage of his condition and he was falsely involved in this case. He explained that Sripal also sustained injuries because of quarrel. He could not say how did he receive injuries. He denied having any fire arm. In his defence, he has produced Dr. H. K. Pal Surgeon, RML Hospital, New Delhi who identified the discharge slip Ex. DW1/a prepared by Dr. V. Sudhakar by identifying his signature. Discharge slip further shows that he was admitted on 06. 10. 1998 and was discharged on 10. 10. 1998. He stated that according to the discharge summary, the unknown person (the appellant himself) was injured on the head by a glass bottle and one man brought him to the hospital. He was fully conscious and was giving smell of alcohol in breath. The appellant has elliptically spoken on the subject of his presence at the spot. ( 6 ) THE defence story appears to be as false as counterfeit coin. He has not explained as to how he happened to be present at the spot, why he was found to be under the influence of liquor, why the employees of a shop would loot their own shop, use firearms and kill one of them. Why did a galaxy of witnesses depose against him. The court is not deceived by his lie. His attempt to white wash the truth with crocodile tears fails. His blue sky ideas have left no impression upon the court. ( 7 ) SECOND submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the pistol was not identified by PW11. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, the prosecution evidence is not be read in bits and pieces. It is quite fathomable that PW11 could not identify the katta because he was injured, hospitalised and was treated. PW2, PW4 and other police officials have identified the katta. Moreover, the non identification of the arm after the lapse of considerable time is not that material. Each person does not have tenacious memory. This must be borne in mind that the incident took place on 06. 10. 1998, and the statement of PW11 was recorded on 06. 06. 2001 i. e. after expiry of almost three years. Moreover, the non identification of the arm after the lapse of considerable time is not that material. Each person does not have tenacious memory. This must be borne in mind that the incident took place on 06. 10. 1998, and the statement of PW11 was recorded on 06. 06. 2001 i. e. after expiry of almost three years. ( 9 ) THE last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant was that lenient view should be taken against the appellant. He also pointed out that accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment in this case as well as in another appeal which is also being disposed of along with this appeal. The other appeal bears no. 823/2001, wherein the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offences under Section 397 IPC and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- failing which he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of rs. 5,000/- failing which he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 392 I. P. C. It was urged that both the sentences in case no. 40/2003 and 823/2001 should be ordered to run concurrently. ( 10 ) SECTION 427 Cr. P. C. is reproduced as hereunder :-"427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence " (1)When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: xxxxx (2) XXXXX" ( 11 ) I am not at all convinced with all the above said submissions. The sentence already awarded by the learned Session Judge is on the lower side. The judgment in the above said connected case in File No. 823/2001 was passed by the trial Court on 07. 05. 2001 i. e. previous to the announcement of judgment in the present case. The judgment in the present case was announced on 02. 11. 2002. The sentence already awarded by the learned Session Judge is on the lower side. The judgment in the above said connected case in File No. 823/2001 was passed by the trial Court on 07. 05. 2001 i. e. previous to the announcement of judgment in the present case. The judgment in the present case was announced on 02. 11. 2002. Before the Trial Court in the instant case, the appellant submitted that since he is a first offender, therefore, lenient view should be taken against him. The learned Trial Court took into consideration the above said submission and awarded the aforesaid sentence. Had the appellant not misled the Trial Court, the Trial Court would have awarded him either sentence of death or that of life imprisonment. It may be recalled that in this dacoity, Inderjeet Singh lost his life. To understand the things clearly, Section 396 IPC is hereby reproduced :-"396 Dacoity with murder " If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. " ( 12 ) IT is crystal clear that the appellant did not hesitate to pull the wool in eyes of law to get the mercy of the court. It is surprising to note that the appellant has no qualms about lying at the time when the sword of Damocles was hanging over his head and that, too, before the Court. He is caught in the pincer of his own making. The appellant is veteran in committing dacoities. What sympathy the court can have with a criminal who is dyed in wool. The appellant deserves no leniency. I see no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Copy of order be sent to the Jail Superintendent who will furnish the same to the appellant. ( 13 ) I appreciate efforts taken by Mr. V. K. Raina, Amicus Curiae in assisting the court to dispose of this case and it is hereby ordered that his fees is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the State within six weeks from today.