Vinay Kumar Mathur, JJ.— Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advo cate. 2. A prayer for bail has been made in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against a judgment and order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Addi tional Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Kan-nauj convicting and sentencing the ap pellants to life imprisonment under sec tion 412, IPC in ST No. 11 of 1996. 3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the present case the appellants have been acquitted under section 396, IPC and only convicted under section 412, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. It is further submitted that the appel lants may not have the knowledge that the truck in which they are travelling was a looted property after commission of the offence. The contents of the FIR lodged by the injured Surendra Singh cannot be read as they do not relate to the death of the injured, who died sub sequently and could not be examined. There was thus no legal evidence to es tablish the identity of the appellants as the persons who have committed this offence. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand argued that the allegations in this case are extremely grave. The truck in which the two deceased persons Gurnam Singh and the "Khalasi" and the injured Surendra Singh were travelling after loading the truck with iron pipes from Sahibabad for Kanpur was stopped at 10.30 A.M., near Dadri Kasba. Then five men and one woman took a lift in the said truck as they wanted to go to Kanpur where the truck was headed. As soon as the truck reached Chhibramau near Hanuman Temple at about 6.30 P.M., then the five accused persons made the injured and two deceased per sons get down and they were taken to a mustard field where the accused per sons started snatching their money. Then they fired on them with country made pistols. Gurnam Singh and the Khalasi died at the spot, but the infor mant Surendra Singh was only injured. The miscreants snatched Rs. 16,500/-from the injured and started running away with the truck because they thought that all the three persons had been murdered.
Then they fired on them with country made pistols. Gurnam Singh and the Khalasi died at the spot, but the infor mant Surendra Singh was only injured. The miscreants snatched Rs. 16,500/-from the injured and started running away with the truck because they thought that all the three persons had been murdered. At that time two police personnel, Chhotey Lal, PW 2 and Pyare Lal, PW 4, who were passing through that_way on cycles came near the truck, who also recognized the miscreants. The injured disclosed the incident to the constables. The accused fled with the truck towards Chhibramau. The accused persons were said to be calling each other by their names. 5. The police constables then took the injured persons to police station Chhibramau where the report was lodged at 8.10 PM on the same day, i.e. 16.12.1995. Consequent to the wireless message sent by the police station, the truck along with the six accused persons were apprehended at 8.45 P.M. by the police of Mohammadabad. 6. It is further submitted by the learned AGA that even without going into the question whether the contents of the FIR was admissible in evidence or not, but the disclosure made by Suren-dra Singh, the injured immediately after the incident to the two constables, PWs 2 and 4, could certainly be read and the evidence can be taken into consideration under section 6 of the Evidence Act as evidence in the nature of res gestae. He also questioned the propriety of the trial judge acquitting the accused persons under section 396, IPC as they were ar rested with the truck soon after the inci dent. 7. As all the six accused persons, which included five men and one woman, who participated in the inci dent at 6.30 P.M., in which two persons were murdered and the third person who had received an injury on the neck may have also appeared to be dead to the appellants, they decamped with the truck. However, owing to a wireless message being sent by the police of PS Chhibramau, they were arrested at 8.45 P.M., on the same evening by the police of PS Mohammadabad.
However, owing to a wireless message being sent by the police of PS Chhibramau, they were arrested at 8.45 P.M., on the same evening by the police of PS Mohammadabad. It would be too speculative to argue that (five men and one woman), who were arrested at 8.45 P.M. by the Mohammadabad police could be different from the six accused persons, who had travelled in the truck and participated in the murder and loot of the deceased and the injured. Thus, there would be no problem in identify ing the appellants as the persons who had committed the crime. 8. Learned AGA further submitted that this Court could in exercise of its suo moto revisional powers set aside the findings of acquittal under section 396 IPC. The arrest of the six accused per sons at 8.45 P.M., by the Mohammada bad police soon after their fleeing with the truck at 6.30 P.M. is another impor tant link for connecting them with this crime. Looking to the gravity of the al legations even if the appellants have only been convicted under section 412, IPC and considering the necessity for this Court to examine the correctness of the findings acquitting the accused per sons under section 396, IPC, we do not think that it is a fit case at all for bail. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of all the appellants is rejected. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. Learned AGA is directed to obtain instructions whether it would be proper to file a Government Appeal against acquittal under section 396 or 302 IPC in this case. Bail Rejected. _____________