JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 394 to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months additional imprisonment, under section 398 IPC to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment, under section 450 IPC to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under section 307 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under sections 3/25 of Arms Act to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to payment of fine to further undergo two months additional imprisonment and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts as per the case of the prosecution is that on 23.7.2008 the Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer received an information that some persons came to rob S.B.I. Bank branch Regional College, Pushkar Road, Ajmer and made a gun fire and a person has been injured. On the information, the SHO, Christianganj, Ajmer reached at the place of incident and on spot the complainant Ratan Lal Agrawal, Manager, submitted a written report with the allegation that at about 1.50 p.m. the staff of the bank was doing work and customers were also present in the bank in which Parasaram was also there. At the same time three persons came in the Bank with an intention to rob which was opposed by Parsaram then a person made a gun fire on Parsaram which hit the stomach of Prasaram after crossing the stomach it hit the wall and fell in front of the cabin of the Manager. The other customers present in the bank tried to catch the accused and the person who made the gun fire was caught and rest of the two persons ran away. The other customers present in the bank tried to catch the accused and the person who made the gun fire was caught and rest of the two persons ran away. The Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer registered an FIR bearing No. 66/2008 for the offence punishable under sections 394, 397, 307, 450, 120 B IPC read with section 34 IPC and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. After investigation charge sheet was filed against three accused persons. Against the appellant Bhupendra Singh @ Lala Banna charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 394, 397, 307, 450, 120 B read with section 34 IPC and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence uner sections 394, 398, 450, 307- 307/34 and section 120 B IPC and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 61 documents. The statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused got exhibited Ex.D-1 and Ex. D-2. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as mentioned above and acquitted the other three accused persons namely Bhanwar Singh, Nand Kishore and Bheru Singh. The accused appellant against the conviction and sentence filed the above appeal. 3. Mr. R.S. Tanwar, learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that the judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused appellant is against the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as the law applicable. The Bank is situated at a public place therefore the charge of house trespass cannot be levelled. It is not proved from the prosecution evidence that the accused tried to rob the bank or its any part. It is also not proved that the accused appellant demanded any money or the keys or threatened any customer or bank employee to give money. As per the story of the prosecution about 500-600 M.L. Blood oozed out from the stomach of Parsaram and other witnesses also stated regarding the blood stained clothes of Parsaram. It is also not proved that the accused appellant demanded any money or the keys or threatened any customer or bank employee to give money. As per the story of the prosecution about 500-600 M.L. Blood oozed out from the stomach of Parsaram and other witnesses also stated regarding the blood stained clothes of Parsaram. The prosecution in its story stated that after crossing the stomach of Parsaram the bullet hit a wall but the sign of hit of bullet on the wall had no blood stain. There are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses do not corroborate the site plan. As per the prosecution story the accused appellant was caught by the public about 2 p.m. but the IO has stated that the accused appellant was arrested at 5 p.m. i.e. after 3 hours and no explanation in this regard has been given. The gun and the bullets have not been identified from any of the witnesses and there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the recovery of the weapon. Other arguments have also been argued by stating that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused appellant by cogent evidence and the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.3.2011 cannot be said to be perverse. The accused appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. I have pondered over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the record of the trial court and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to have look at the evidence produced by the prosecution. PW.1 Bharat Singh Rathore has stated in his statement about the arrest of accused Nand Kishore. He has proved Ex.P.1 arrest memo and admitted his signatures A to B on Ex.P.1. PW.2 Narpat Singh has stated in his statement about the recovery of Motor Cycle from accused Nand Kishore. He has proved seizure memo Ex. P.2 of Motor Cycle and admitted his signatures on Ex. P.2. He has also admitted his signatures A to B on Ex. P.3 Naksa Moka. PW.2 Narpat Singh has stated in his statement about the recovery of Motor Cycle from accused Nand Kishore. He has proved seizure memo Ex. P.2 of Motor Cycle and admitted his signatures on Ex. P.2. He has also admitted his signatures A to B on Ex. P.3 Naksa Moka. PW.3 Siyaram, HC 150 Christian Ganj stated about the deposit of seized articles in the Police Station and thereafter sending the same to the FSL through Mahesh Chand Constable. He has proved Ex. P.4 Register S.No. 131 and admitted his signatures A to B on it. He has also proved signatures of SHO E to F on Ex. P.4. He has also proved Ex. P.5 about the deposit of articles in the Malkhana and admitted his signatures A to B at S.No. 133 on Ex.P.5. He has also proved Ex.P.6 S.No. 155 and admitted his signatures on it A to B. He has also proved Ex.P.7 deposit of Indica Car RJ 01 1C 2249 at S.No.158 in the Malkhana Register and admitted his signatures A to B. He has also admitted about the deposit of two packets in Malkhana vide Ex.P.8 and further admitted his signature A to B on it. He has also admitted entry S.No.172 in the Malkhana Register about deposit of blood sample test tube on 3.9.2008 by constable Bhagchand and further admitted his signatures A to B. He has also stated in his statement about the sending of blood sample test tube to the FSL through Constable Mahesh Chand 940. Mahesh Chand Sharma vide letter dated 10.9.2008 of SP deposited the same in the FSL vide receipt 7974. Mahesh Chand Sharma vide letter dated 10.9.2008 of SP deposited the same in the FSL vide receipt 7974. PW.4 Ratan Lal Agarwal, has stated in his statement about the detaining of accused Bhupendra Singh by the staff and customers in the Bank on 23.7.2008 at 1.55 p.m. In his examination in chief he has stated thus : ^^esa ,l-ch-vkbZ- fo'ks"k 'kk[kk] vtesj ilZuy ds in ij dk;Zjr gWwA fnukad 23-7-2008 dks le; djhc 1-55 ih-,e- ij inepUn tSu ofj"B lgk;d ,l-ch-vkbZ- foLrkj iVy jhtuy dkyst vtesj us VsyhQksu ls eq>s crk;k fd rhu O;fä cSad esa cSad ywVus dh fu;r ls vk;s Fks] ftuesa ls ,d O;fä us xksyh pyk nh] tks ,d xzkgd ds yxh gS] xzkgd dk uke ijlkjke crk;k FkkA vkSj dgk fd vki rRdky cSad vkosa] ftl ij eSa jk/ks';ke oekZ dks lkFk ydj cSad igqapk] ekSds ij iqfyl vk x;h FkhA iqfyl dk;Zokgh dj jgh Fkh] ,d O;fä ds ikl ls ,d ns'kh dÍk] ftank dkjrwl bR;kfn cjken fd;s FksA ftl O;fä ls mä lkeku cjken fd;k] ml O;fä us viuk uke HkwisUnz crk;k FkkA ogka yksx crk jgs Fks fd bl O;fä us xksyh pyk;h gSA ml O;fä ds LdkQZ ls cka/k j[kk FkkA in his cross examination he has stated as under : ;g lgh gS fd esjs lkeus dksbZ okjnkr ugha gqbZA esjs lkeus eqyfte dks ugha idM+k cfYd eqyfte dks idM+k gqvk FkkA eSa igqapk rc eqyfte dks idM+ j[kk FkkA esjh tkudkjh esa ,slk ugha vk;k fd MdSrksa us dSf'k;j ij gfFk;kj rkudj ;g dgk fd uxnh laHkykvksa o dS'k nksA ;g Hkh tkudkjh esa ugha vk;k fd cSad eSustj vFkok fdlh cSaddehZ dks gfFk;kj fn[kkdj jksdM+ ;k :i;s ekaxs gksA** 6. This witness proved Ex. P.10 written report given by the Bank officials to him and admitted his signatures A to B on it. He has also proved Ex. P.11 seizure memo of live cartridge. He has also proved Naksha Moka Ex.P.12 and admitted his signatures A to B on it. In cross examination he has identified the accused Bhupendra Singh from whose possession Deshi Kata and live cartridge were recovered. 7. PW.5 Santosh Tewani, official of the Bank completely supported the case of the prosecution and has stated about the whole prosecution case. He has also supported the Ex. In cross examination he has identified the accused Bhupendra Singh from whose possession Deshi Kata and live cartridge were recovered. 7. PW.5 Santosh Tewani, official of the Bank completely supported the case of the prosecution and has stated about the whole prosecution case. He has also supported the Ex. P.10 Report stating about the covering of faces by the accused persons and two of them ran away and one was caught at the spot covering his face by scarf. In his cross examination he has stated thus : ^^xksyh yxus ds ckn ij'kjke fxjk ugha Fkk [kM+k gh Fkk vkSj gks'k esa FkkA vkSj iSny pydj gh xSV rd x;k ;g esjs /;ku ugha gS fd xksyh ,Q,l,y okyksa us mBkbZ ;k iqfyl okyksa us mBkbZ FkhA ,d [kksy o ,d ftank xksyh mBkbZ FkhA ftank dkjrwl mldh tsc ls fy;k FkkA ml O;fä us ml fnu isaV igu j[kh FkhA fiLVy ml O;fä dh cka;h tsc ls fiLVy o xksyh fudyhA** 8. PW.6 Padam Chand Jain, who was Senior Clerk in the Bank, was declared hostile. He has admitted about handing over of the report Ex. P.10 and signature on it to the Manager. He has not supported his police statement Ex. P.14 in his statement in the cross examination. PW. 7 Shyam Lal Meena, Senior Accountant Regional College Ajmer, customer present at the Bank at the time of incident was declared hostile. He has admitted about the incident and receiving of injuries by the injured Parasram from the persons having their faces covered. He has denied his police statement Ex.P.15 in the cross examination. PW. 7 Shyam Lal Meena, Senior Accountant Regional College Ajmer, customer present at the Bank at the time of incident was declared hostile. He has admitted about the incident and receiving of injuries by the injured Parasram from the persons having their faces covered. He has denied his police statement Ex.P.15 in the cross examination. PW.8 Parsaram Chaudhary, injured in his statement stated thus : ^^gfFk;kj okys ftl O;fä dks eSus idM+k mllus Nhuk >iVh gqbZA mlus esjs cka;h rjQ lhus esa xksyh ekj nh tks nkbZ rjQ ls isV ls gksdj nhokj esa tk VdjkbZA mlds ckn xksyh ekjus okys O;fä dks cSad okyks us idM+ fy;kA vkSj eSaus viuh iRuh dks Qksu fd;kA iRuh ds ikl esjs lkys th cynso [kM+s Fks tks fd iqfyl esa njxkg Fkkus esa iksLVsM Fks fQj eSaus Qksu ij mudks bÙkyk dh fd esjs xksyh yxh gS vkSj fQj mUgksaus vkdj eq>s feÙky vLirky tgka esjk vkWijs'ku gqvkA ftlus xksyh pykbZ mldk uke eq>s ckn esa irk pyk ftldk uke HkwisUnz flag FkkA eq>s tSy esa Hkaoj flag eqfYte dh igpku djokbZ FkhA ftldks tsy esa eSus lgh rkSj ij igpkuk FkkA QnZ f'kuk[rxh izn'kZ ih16 ftl ij nks txg , ls ch esjs gh gLrk{kj gSA gkftj vnkyr eqfYte Hkaoj flag ds xokg us gkFk yxkdj dgk fd ;g ogh eqfYte gS ftldks eSaus tsy esa lgh igpkuk FkkA gkftj vnkyr eqfYte HkwisUnz flag ogh O;fä gS ftlus esjs xksyh ekjh FkhA** 9. PW.8 Parasram admitted his signatures on Ex.P.16 identification parade of accused Bhanwar Singh. 10. PW.9 Vikram Singh Meena, aged 21 years, was also present in the Bank at the time of incident, but he has been declared hostile. He admitted the incident in the Bank. He has also admitted that one person was caught in the said incident. PW.10 Dr. Pranesh Prasad, Surgeon stated about the injury received by the injured and presence of entry and exit of gun fire and immediately operation was done by him. He has proved Ex.P.18 Operation Theatre Note and also P.19 Indoor Ticket. PW.11 Chena Ram, Constable stated about the recovery of clothes from the Mital Hospital of the injured. PW.12 Mahesh Chand, Constable Police Station Chritian Ganj stated about the delivery of four Packets to FSL for examination. PW.13 Nemichand Pareek, DTO Ajmer stated that on the request by the police authorities he has issued Ex. P.22 and Ex. PW.11 Chena Ram, Constable stated about the recovery of clothes from the Mital Hospital of the injured. PW.12 Mahesh Chand, Constable Police Station Chritian Ganj stated about the delivery of four Packets to FSL for examination. PW.13 Nemichand Pareek, DTO Ajmer stated that on the request by the police authorities he has issued Ex. P.22 and Ex. P.23 which are bearing his signatures. PW.14 Dr. R.K. Boyal, Medical Jurist, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer stated about the examination of injuries of Parsaram injured. Ex.P.24 was prepared by him which is an injury report. Ex. P.25 is Radiologist report. In his statement he admitted that after examination Operation Theatre report and other documents described the injuries received by Parsaram to be dangerous in nature Ex.P.18 is the attested copy of the Operation Complete and Admit Ticket on the basis of which he has given certificate Ex. P.19. PW.14 on the basis of the documents gave the following statement in examination in chief : ^^jk; ds vuqlkj pksV la-2 o 3 ,Dljs fjiksVZ vkWijs'ku uksV fDyfudy uksV~l vkSj fjO;w bUTMZ vkQVj fgfyax ckcr~ xEHkhj o thou ds izk.k ?kkrd FkhA iz-ih-18 izekf.kr izfr feÙky gksLihVy dh vkWijs'ku dEiyhV HkrhZ fVdV gS ftldks ns[kdj iz-ih-19 eSaus nh FkhA iz-ih-19 ds vuqlkj et:c ds okbVy ikVZ fetksdksyu vkSj LVed vkSj yhoj ij pksV gksus ds dkj.k gh vkWijs'ku fd;k x;k Vksj 500 ls 600 ,e,y [kwu Mk- ih- izlkn }kjk fudkyk x;k mlds vk/kkj ij gh eSaus fjiksVZ vafre jk; nh FkhA** 11. PW.15 Navin Mahajan District Collector as on 6.10.08 stated that he received FIR No. 166/08 of Christian Ganj for sanction of the prosecution under section 3/25 of the Arms Act against accused appellant Bhupendra Singh. He admitted sanction Ex. P.26 on which he has put his signature A to B at the time of issuing the sanction against the accused appellant. 12. PW.16 Jagdish ASI, Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer stated in his statement that on 23.7.08 he was posted at the Police Station. He admitted sanction Ex. P.26 on which he has put his signature A to B at the time of issuing the sanction against the accused appellant. 12. PW.16 Jagdish ASI, Police Station Christian Ganj, Ajmer stated in his statement that on 23.7.08 he was posted at the Police Station. In his statement he has stated as under : ^^eSa fnukad 23-7-08 dks iqfyl Fkkuk fd'kuxat vtesj ij ,,lvkbZ ds in ij rSukr Fkk ml fnu Mh-vks-M~;wVh FkhA le; djhc 2-55 ih,e ij ,l,pvks fd'kuxat }kjk eky'kqnk ,d rgjhj fjiksVZ e; dk;Zokgh iqfyl iz-ih-10 esjs le{k is'k dhA tks flikgh HkkxpUn 1837 us esjs le{k ykdj is'k dh FkhA iz-ih-10 uh ds ls ,y esjh dk;Zokgh iqfyl gS] ,e ls ,y esjs gLrk- gSA mä rgjhj fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij eSus Fkkus ij eq-ua- 166@08 vUrxZr /kkjk 394] 397] 450] 452] 34 o 3@25 vkElZ ,DV esa ntZ fd;kA pkd ,QvkbZvkj ia-ih-27 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs] lh ls Mh HkkxpUn ds gLrk- gS] iz-ih-10 ij HkkxpUn vks ls ih gLrk- HkkxpUn flikgh ds gSA rRi'pkr~ eqdnek dk; dj okLrs vuqla/kku pkd ,QvkbZvkj o rgjhj fjiksVZ okLrs vuqla/kku lh-vkbZ- lkgc :ifd'kksj prqosZnh dks lqiqnZ dhA nkSjkus vuqla/kku eqy- uanfd'kksj flag ls lh-vkbZ- lkgc us ,d eks-lk- ctkt tCr dh Fkh ftldh QnZ iz-ih- 2 cukbZ ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk- gSA cjkenxh LFky dk uD'kk iz-ih-3 cuk;k FkkA ftl ij Hkh lh ls Mh esjs gLrk- gSa** 13. PW.17 Kishore Kumar, Additional Collector Ajmer in his statement stated about the identification parade proceedings of accused persons. 14. PW.18 Roop Kishore, SHO Police Station Chritian Ganj as on 23.7.08 stated about the investigation done by him and the relevant documents prepared by him including the arrest of accused appellant and recoveries made from him by the relevant documents and the same have been proved by him in his statement. 15. 14. PW.18 Roop Kishore, SHO Police Station Chritian Ganj as on 23.7.08 stated about the investigation done by him and the relevant documents prepared by him including the arrest of accused appellant and recoveries made from him by the relevant documents and the same have been proved by him in his statement. 15. In the judgment of conviction and sentence the trial court in paras 45, 46 47, 67 and 68 observed as under: ^^45- xokg ih-M-8 vkgr ijljke] ih-M-6 inepUn ,oa ih-M-5 larks"k Vsok.kh us vius c;kuksa esa vkxs ;g dFku fd;k gS fd cSad esa ekStwn xzkgd ijlkjke us fiLrksy /kkjh ;qod dks idM+us dk iz;kl fd;k vkSj mls idM+ fy;k] ysfdu vU; nksuksa ;qod ekSds ls Hkkx tkus esa lQy gks x;s vkSj idM+s gq, ;sod us ijlkjke ds isV ij xksyh pyk nhA U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag dks mä rhuksa gh lk{khx.k us xksyh pykus okys ;qod ds :i esa igpku fd;k gS vkSj mä rF;ksa ckcr~ rhuksa gh lk{khx.k viuh izfrijh{kk esa Hkh vfMx jgs gSA 46- xokg ih-M-4 jruyky us Hkh ?kVuk dh lwpuk feyus ij ekSds ij igaqpus ij] vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag dks ekSds ij ekStwn gksuk o mlds dCts ls ns'kh dÍk] [kkyh dkjrwl o ftank dkjrwl cjken fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr vfHk;qä vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag dks ns[kdj bl lk{kh us Hkh] gkFk yxkdj igpku djrs gq,] cSad esa idM+k tkuk vkSj blds dCts ls ns'kh dÍk o dkjrwl cjken fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us ;g Hkh dgk gS fd ;g lgh gS fd iqfyl us eqyfte ds gkFk ls esjs lkeus dÍk fy;k Fkk vkSj izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku bl fcUnq ij xokg iw.kZ:i ls vfMx jgk gSA ih-M-5 larks"k Vsok.kh] ih-M-6 inepUnz Hkh bl fcUnq ij ,d er jgk gS fd xokg ih-M-8 ijlkjke] tks fd vkgr gS] us Hkh HkwisUnz flag ds laca/k esa vfHk;qä dh f'kuk[r djrs gq,] ;g crk;k Fkk fd HkwisUnz flag gh ogh O;fDra gS ftlus cSad esa ml ij xksyh pyk;h FkhA nkSjkus izfrijh{kk xokgksa us bl lq>ko ls Li"V badkj fd;k gS fd gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag us MdSrh djus dh uh;r ls cSad esa izos'k ugha fd;k Fkk vkSj og vU; dksbZ O;fä FkkA ih-M-9 foØe eh.kk ;+fi i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr gqvk gS] ysfdu bl lk{kh us Hkh gkftj vnkr vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag dks gkFk yxkdj ;g dgk gS fd ;g ogh O;fä gS] tks ywVsjk gSA izfr ijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us fo}ku vf/koäk vfHk;qä }kjk fn;s x;s bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k gS fd HkwisUnzflag uke dk dksbZ O;fä ekSds ij idM+k ugha x;k gksA mä lHkh xokgksa dh vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag ls fdlh izdkj dh jaft'k vFkok }s"krk dk dksbZ rF; vfHk;qä dh vksj ls ugha crk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjä vU;Fkk Hkh ,slh dksbZ rF; vFkok ifjfLFkfr;ka ugha crk;h x;h gS] fd d;ksa dj xokgku] vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag ds fo:) vlR; dFku djsaxsA 47- xokg ih-M-18 :ifd'kksj us Hkh /kVuk dh lwpuk feyus ij] e; tkIrk ekSds ij igqapus ij] ekSds ij vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag dk ekStwn gksuk ,oa mlds dCts ls ns'kh dÍk] pys gq, dkjrwl dh [kkyh o ,d ftank dkjrwj cjken fd;s tkus dk Li"V dFku fd;k gS vkSj ;g lk{kh Hkh izfrijh{kk esa iw.kZr% vfMx jgk gSA xokg ih-M-3 fl;kjke us Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk lqiqnZ fd;s tkus ij tIr'kqnk eky ns'kh dÍk] dkjrwj vkfn] tek eky[kkuk fd;k tkuk ,oa ,l-ih- dk;kZy; ls i= cuok dj ,Q-,l-,y- esa tek djk;s tkus gsrq eky fHktok;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA 67- vfHk;qäx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ls esa iw.kZr% lger gwW] ijUrq izLrqr fofukZ;ksa esa ikfjr fl)kUr izdj.k fo'ks"k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa fn;s x;s gS tks rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh fHkUurk ds pyrs gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;qä HkwisUnz dh dksbZ lgk;rk ugha djrs gS] D;ksafd gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;qä Hkwisunzflag dks ?kVuk ds le; cSaddehZ LVkQ ,oa xzkge ijlkjke ds }kjk idM+k x;k gS rFkk mlds dCts ls ekSds ij gh ,d ns'kh dÍk] dkjrwl dk [kksy o ,d ftank dkjrwl cjken fd;k x;k gS] bl fcUnq ij xokgksa dh lk{; esa rfud Hkh fojks/kkHkkl izdV ugha gqvk gS vkSj izLrqr xokgksa ls bl vfHk;qä dh dksbZ jaft'k ;k }s"krk dk Hkh dksbZ rF; lkeus ugha vk;k gSA 68- vr% i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds mijksä foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds i'pkr~ vfHk;qä HkwisUnzflag vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 394] 398] 450 o 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ,oa /kkjk 3@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds fy, nks"kflf) fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ysfdu vkjskfir /kkjk 120ch Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds ckcr~ dksbZ lk{; ugha gksus ls] mä vijk/k ls nks"keqä fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 'ks"k rhuksa vfHk;qäx.k uanfd'kksj] Hkaojflag ,oa Hkw:flag vkjksfir vijk/kksa ls nks"keqä fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 16. On the basis of the discussion of the evidence mentioned above in the foregoing paras and the findings of the trial court, I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial court convicting the accused appellant Bhupendra Singh @ Lala Bana for the offence under Sections 394, 398, 450 and 307 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant being devoid of merit stand rejected. The sentence awarded to the accused appellant for the offences under sections 394 to suffer seven year RI and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further under go six months RI, under section 398 IPC to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment, under Section 450 IPC to suffer 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under section 307 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment and under sections 3/25 of Arms Act to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to payment of fine to further undergo two months additional imprisonment, are confirmed. Since the trial court directed to run the sentence concurrently, I confirm the order of the trial court also in this respect and direct that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 17. For these reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and confirm the same. This criminal appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The accused appellant shall serve the remaining sentence as awarded by the trial court and confirmed by this court.