IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2675-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full Judgment Naresh @ Nikka …… ...Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2362-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Pawan @ Pammu and another ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2417-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Sandeep ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2938-2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 2 Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2993-2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Sunny@ Swaran ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-2675-2024. None for the appellant in CRA-S-2417-2024. Mr. Sunil Polist, Advocate for appellant No.1 in CRA-S-2362-2024.

Mr. K.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant No.2 in CRA-S-2362-2024. Mr. Sahil Parmar, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-2938-2025 and CRA-S-2993-2025. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. 1. These 05 appeals against the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in Sessions Case No.50 of 2021 (CIS No.SC/138/2020) and arising from FIR bearing No.155 dated 06.06.2020 registered under Sections 395, 397, 427, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar Kaithal, District Kaithal are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts are, however, being extracted from CRA-S-2675-2024 titled as ‘Naresh @ Nikka Vs. The State of Haryana’. 2. Briefly summarized, facts of the present case are that on MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 3

06.06.2020, on receipt of information regarding dacoity in the HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak, the police officials reached at the spot. One of the accused/Sandeep son of Rajkumar, was produced, whereupon the authorities took him in custody. Efforts for the search for the remaining co-accused, who had fled away from the spot, taking advantage of the darkness, were made, but in vain. Later, Surjeet Singh son of Ram Sarup, gave a written complaint in the presence of the Bank Manager of the HDFC Bank, to ASI Randeep Singh, alleging therein that he was appointed as a guard from G.I. Group, Security Company for HDFC Bank and ATM of village Keorak and he had been working there for one year. His duty hours are from 05:00 p.m. to 09:00 a.m. On the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020, while he was doing his duty as usual, four/five persons came in a white-coloured car at about 1:00/1:30 a.m. They were armed with a pistol, sword and iron rods. Out of them, one man caught him (the complainant) from his collar and forcibly took him to the adjacent shop, i.e. Shiv Tent House and pointed a gun at his head. He forcibly took the keys of the bank, snatched his mobile phone and tied him to the chair with the help of a rope. For the entire time, one person remained present near him while the remaining accused persons entered the Bank as well as the ATM and started vandalizing. After some time, a police vehicle arrived in front of the bank blaring its siren. Hearing the same, out of fear, the person who had pointed a gun at him started running and raised an alarm. On hearing and seeing this, the police officials reached at the shop and untied the complainant. Four persons fled away from the spot. The complainant, along with police officials, tried to chase them. The police caught one person; however, the remaining accused succeeded in escaping

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 4 taking advantage of darkness. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Sandeep son of Rajkumar, resident of Nanakpuri Colony, Khurana Road, Kaithal. He got recovered one gas cylinder and a gas cutter from the Bank, with which the accused persons attempted to cut the ATM. The accused persons also took the 12-bore double-barrel gun of the guard, who performed duty in the morning hours; however, they left the ETIOS Liva G vehicle, in which they had come, at the spot. The complainant stated that he could identify the accused persons if they came forward. The Bank Manager also reached at the spot. 3. After recording the statements of witnesses, including complainant-Surjeet Singh, a formal FIR was lodged, the scene of the crime was inspected and thereafter a rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The articles, i.e. one gas cylinder, welding cutter along with rubber pipe, broken cameras, one iron pipe wrench, two locks (steel), and the Car etc., were taken into police possession. Disclosure statement of the accused Sandeep was recorded. Footage from CCTV cameras was also obtained. Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was also received.

4. On 09.06.2020, pursuant to the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, co-accused Pammu alias Pawan and Shammy alias Gaurav were interrogated and arrested. One country-made pistol of .315 bore, along with one live cartridge of .315 bore, was recovered from the store room of the house of the co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu at his disclosure. Co-accused/Shammy alias Gaurav also got recovered a 12 bore, double-barrel pistol, belonging to the Guard, from the store room of his cousin (son of his maternal aunt). MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 5 5. During the investigation, co-accused/Raman and Sunny alias Swaran were also arrested and they suffered their disclosure statements. An application for carrying out Test Identification Parade was also moved before the Illaqa Magistrate but accused-appellant(s)/Sunny alias Swaran, Pammu alias Pawan and Shammy alias Gaurav refused to get their Test Identification Parade conducted. 6. After completion of the investigation, initially a challan against accused-appellant(s)/Sandeep, Pammu alias Pawan, Shammy alias Gaurav, Raman and Sunny alias Swaran was submitted before the Court. On 20.11.2020, after the arrest of accused Naresh alias Nikka, a supplementary Challan qua him was also submitted before the Court. 7. Copy of the Challan and documents attached therewith were supplied to the accused persons.

8. Finding a prima-facie case, accused/Sandeep, Raman, Pawan alias Pammu, Shammy alias Gaurav and Sunny alias Swaran were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of Arms Act 1959, vide order dated 12.02.2021, whereas co-accused/Naresh alias Nikka was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 30.07.2021, to which they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Sandeep Sharma, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Koerak, Kaithal. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 6 PW-2 Balwinder Kaur wife of Balihar PW-3 Surjeet Singh son of Shri Ramsaroop PW-4 ASI Ramphal No.285/KTL PW-5 Ravinder Singh, Reader to DM PW-6 ASI Ram Jawari No.78/KTL PW-7 Rishipal, Draftsman PW-8 Head Constable Ram Niwas No.492/KTL PW-9 Inspector Rajphool No.154/KR PW-10 Head Constable Tarsem Kumar No.377/KTL PW-11 Head Constable Manish Kumar No.93/KTL PW-12 Assistant Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar No.6/KTL PW-13 Jasbir Singh son of Shri Sunehra Lal PW-14 Constable Sandeep No.235 CIA-1/Kaithal PW-15 ASI Randeep Singh No.7/KTL PW-16 Neena, Copyist of learned ACJM, Kaithal PW-17 SI Satish Kumar No.846/KTL PW-18 SI Ramesh Chand No.286/KR

The prosecution has also proved the following documents:-Ex.P1 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. Ex.P2 Statement of Balwinder Kaur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.HR02AT6466 Ex.P4 Recovery memo of car bearing No.HR02AT-6466 alongwith its registration certificate. Ex.P5 Application/complaint moved to S.H.O. Keorak by MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 7 complainant. Ex.P6 Recovery memo of gas cylinder, gas cutter, a big gas cylinder, pipe wrench, two CCTV cameras, etc. Ex.P7 Disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Kumar Ex.P7 (Corrected as Ex.P7/A) Supplementary statement of complainant. Ex.P8 Sanction order Ex.P9 Test report of country made pistol .315 bore alongwith live cartridge. Ex.P10 Scaled site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P11 Disclosure statement of accused Pammu alias Pawan. Ex.P12 Disclosure statement of accused Shammy alias Gaurav. Ex.P13 Recovery memo of country made pistol .315 bore alongwith sample seal. Ex.P14 Rough sketch of country made pistol. Ex.P15 Rough sketch of licensee gun 12 bore, double barrel. Ex.P16 Recovery memo of gun 12 bore double barrel alongwith sample seal. Ex.PW16/A Joint statement of accused Pammu alias Pawan, Sammy alias Gaurav, Sunny alias Swaran regarding refusal for get conducted their Test Identification Parade.

Ex.P17 Disclosure statement of accused Raman. Ex.PW17/A First Information Report bearing No.155 dated 06.06.2020. Ex.PW17/B Endorsement on the margin of police proceedings. Ex.P18 Disclosure statement of accused Sunny alias Swaran. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 8 Ex.P19 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Pammu alias Pawan. Ex.P20 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Sunny alias Swaran. Ex.P21 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Shammy alias Gaurav. Ex.P22 Recovery memo of photocopy of original licence gun 12 bore double barrel and photocopy of Aadhar Card. Ex.P23 Recovery memo of motorcycle Hero Honda alongwith mobile phone. Ex.P24 Disclosure statement of accused Sandeep. Ex.P24 (Corrected as Ex.P24/A) Application for conducting Test Identification Parade of accused Shammy alias Gaurav, Pammu alias Pawan and Sunny alias Swaran. Ex.P25 Disclosure statement of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P25 (Corrected as Ex.P25/A) Rough site plan of place of recovery of country made pistol .315 bore. Ex.P26 Demarcation memo prepared at the instance of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P26 (Corrected as Ex.P26/A) Rough site plan of place of recovery of country made pistol .315 bore. Ex.P27 Mark A Photocopy of licence of 12 bore gun of Jasbir Singh.

Ex.P27/A Mark B Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Jasbir Singh. Ex.P27/B Reply/endorsement of police underneath application for releasing Gun 12 bore on Superdari in favour of Jasbir Singh. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 9 Ex.P27/C Application for releasing Gun 12 bore on Superdari in favour of Jasbir Singh. Ex.P27 (Corrected as Ex.P27/X) Application for conducting Test Identification Parade of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P28 Police Proceedings underneath complaint Ex.P5. Ex.P29 Rough site plan of place of occurrence. Ex.P30 Arrest memo of accused Sandeep. Ex.P31 Application moved to Bank Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak. Ex.P32 to Ex.P40 Photographs. Ex.P41 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. MO/1 Pen drive MO/1 (Corrected as MO/X) Cylinder of Indane MO/2 One big gas welding cutter alongwith rubber pipe MO/3 Big cylinder MO/4 & MO/5 2 broken CCTV Cameras MO/6 Iron pipe wrench MO/7 One gidala of iron (rod) MO/8 & MO/9 2 locks of steel. MO/10 Country made pistol .315 bore alongwith live cartridge. MO/11 Live Cartridge of pistol .315 bore MO/12 Sample seal MO/13 Mobile phone MO/14 Sample seal. 10. After hearing the respective parties, the trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows:- MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 10

Under Section 395 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) each. In default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months each. Under Section 397 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 07 (Seven) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each and in default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Under Section 427 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 02 (Two) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each and in default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Under Section 25 Arms All the convicts shall undergo rigorous Act read with Section imprisonment for 07 (Seven) years and 120-B of IPC shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each. In default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Hence, the present appeals.

11. Learned counsel for appellant-Naresh @ Nikka has argued that the appellant has been nominated on the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, recorded while in police custody. The said disclosure is inadmissible against him, since it is not followed by any recovery of any nature whatsoever. Only the demarcation of the place of occurrence has been got conducted MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 11

from the appellant, which is inconsequential since the place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of the police and would not amount to discovery of any fact. It is further contended that no test identification parade was conducted to establish his identity and that PW-3/complainant/Surjeet Singh did not support the case of the prosecution. He was thus declared hostile on account of his failure to identify the appellant-accused in the Court. It is further contended that the other alleged eye-witness i.e. PW8/HC Ram Niwas, has also stated that he is not in a position to identify any of the accused who fled away from the place of occurrence. It is contended that conviction of the appellant rests solely on the disclosure, which is not corroborated and there is no other evidence on record to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. There is a necessity for existence of a link evidence against any accused in addition to the confession. In the absence thereof, it is a weak evidence and it would be improper to record a finding of conviction against an accused.

12. Counsel for the appellant Raman (in CRA-S-2362-2024) contends that the prosecution case is for an attempt to commit dacoity, on the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020, where co-accused/Sandeep was apprehended at the spot. In his first disclosure (Ex.P7), co-accused/Sandeep attributed participation in the offence to four accomplices and did not mention the name of appellant-accused/Raman. It was only in his second disclosure recorded on 08.06.2020 (Ex. P24) that the name of appellant-Raman cropped up for the first time. The attribution against him is that the Etios Liva car used in the commission of the offence and recovered from the spot had been provided by him. He contends that the said vehicle stands MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 12

registered in the name of one Balwinder Kaur, whose’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P2) was recorded on 28.07.2020 to the effect that the vehicle belonged to her husband, Balihar, who was then lodged in District Jail, Kaithal. She also stated that the said car had been given to appellant-accused/Raman about 10 days earlier. The said timelines thus would relate to around 17/18.07.2020, which is much after the date of the incident on the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020. It is further contended that the said witness appeared as PW2 but did not support the case of the prosecution and denied knowing appellant/Raman or ever having entrusted the car to him. Thus, the only link evidence to associate Raman with the commission of the offence ceased to exist. There were no further incriminating circumstances. It is further argued that there is no overt act attributed to the appellant in the commission of the offence of dacoity and that, to sustain his conviction for the said offence, proof of participation of appellant-Raman was required. The said evidence being unavailable on file, the conviction is unsustainable against him and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the vehicle in question had already been recovered from the place of the incident. There being no recovery from the appellant-Raman, hence, the case against him is solely based upon incriminating confession/disclosure by the co-accused.

13. Counsel for appellant Pawan @ Pammu contends that the name of the appellant cropped up in the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep Kumar, and as the eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the presence of the appellant at the spot, hence, his nomination is misplaced. The case in hand is a planted one, and the alleged recovery of MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 13

.315 bore pistol and a mobile phone, which has been effected, does not establish involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted. Counsel further contends that even the condition of the said recovery is sufficient to discard the recovery since it was submitted by PW6/ASI Ram Jawari that the pistol was heavily rusted, whereas PW10/HC Tarsem Kumar specifically acknowledged that no portion of the pistol was rusted. Hence, the contradictory statements about the condition of the weapon reflects tampering of evidence while in Police custody. Counsel further contends that PW12/ASI Mukesh Kumar, stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., said that the grip of the pistol was wooden, whereas on its examination, the weapon was found to have a brass grip. It is submitted that the recovery of the pistol thus becomes suspicious and has to be disregarded. Additionally, no test identification had been conducted. It is submitted that there was only one case against the appellant for the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; however, the appellant already stands acquitted in the said case.

14. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant-Sandeep (in CRA-S-2417-2024) despite the intimation having been specifically sent to the counsel; however, counsel representing the other appellants-accused assisted this Court with respect to appellant-accused/Sandeep as well. The grounds impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the appeal are suggestive to the effect that the complainant/Surjeet Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and no recovery has been effected from him. It is contended that the case is solely based upon the disclosure MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 14 statement and his confession recorded while in police custody, which is inadmissible. It is further contended that the appellant has also undergone an actual sentence of more than 2 years and 05 months.

15. Counsel for the appellant(s) Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (in CRA-S-2938-2025) and Sunny @ Swaran (in CRA-S-2993-2025) contends that the appellants had been nominated as accused on the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, and they have clean antecedents as they are not involved in any other criminal case. He contends that both the appellants- Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Sunny @ Swaran have undergone an actual sentence of more than 02 years 7 months. He contends that no recovery has been effected from appellant/Sunny @ Swaran, while one 12 bore double barrel gun of guard-Jasbir Singh (who was to report for duty during day hours in the bank) was shown to have been recovered at the instance of appellant/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar from the house of co-accused/ Pawan @ Pammu (who is the son of maternal aunt-Mausi), situated in Kaithal. With respect to the arguments on behalf of Sunny @ Swaran, it is contended that PW3 Surjeet Singh, the eye-witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and specifically stated that the appellants are not the persons who committed the dacoity in the Bank. The disclosure is thus liable to be discarded against the appellant-Sunny @ Swaran. There is no other forensic or scientific evidence that has been collected by the Police to link him with the commission of the offence. It is argued vehemently that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the appellant or establish his presence at the spot. Consequently, the conviction ought to be set aside.

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 15 16. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants-accused. Merely because some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution does not mean that there is no evidence establishing participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that PW6/ASI Ram Jawari has specifically submitted that the Investigating Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar handed over to him one sealed parcel, i.e. plastic dibba containing one country-made pistol duly sealed by him ‘MK/2’ along with sample seal MK/1 on 18.06.2020. The sealed parcel was opened and technically examined by him, and a country-made pistol was found to be in working condition. One live cartridge of the same pistol was also taken up and examined, and thereafter, the same was sealed in the presence of the Investigating Officer with a seal of monogram RS/1 and handed over to the IO along with the report Ex. P9. The case property produced before PW6 was approved by him.

17. It is contended by the learned State counsel that further, PW8/Head Constable Ram Niwas has specifically suggested that on the day of the incident, i.e. 06.06.2020, he was working as a Driver in the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08W-6039, and he joined the investigation of the case. He, along with ASI Randeep Singh and Constable Satish, was on patrolling duty regarding crime detection. When they reached near the ATM of the HDFC Bank Branch, Keorak, they noticed that the light inside the bank was on and they blew the siren of their Govt. vehicle to check the presence of the guard of the Bank. On hearing the same, one person armed with a pistol came running out from the Shiv Tent House shop and ran MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 16

towards the fields and escaped taking advantage of the darkness. When they entered the shop, they noticed the bank guard and rescued him. They also chased the accused person and caught one person, who disclosed his identity as Sandeep son of Rajkumar, resident of Kaithal. They found gas cylinders, a gas cutter, a pipe wrench, one iron gidala on the spot and the same were produced before the Incharge of the Police post Keorak, being the head of the police party. PW10/Head Constable Tarsem Kumar testified that accused/Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar were arrested by the Investigating Officer, and in his presence, one motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08AA-9448 (Black Colour) and one mobile was taken into possession. Later, from the house of accused/Pawan @ Pammu, one country-made pistol .315 bore, and one live cartridge of the said pistol were recovered, which were converted into a parcel and sealed with seal MK/2 and taken into possession. He also gave the details of the case property, seizure of the same and appended his signature. He further contended that in the same house, later accused/ Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar also got recovered 12 bore licensed gun, which was lying in the store of the said house and a rough sketch of the gun was also prepared, which bears the signatures of HC Randeep Singh. He further deposed that on the disclosure of accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu, co-accused/Raman was arrested from Kaithal and demarcation memos (Ex.P19 to P21) were prepared at the instance of Pawan @ Pammu, Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar respectively. It is further prepared that PW11/Head Constable Manish Kumar supported the same. The Investigating Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 17

proved the case of the prosecution and gave a detailed description of the investigation conducted by him, and also proved the recovery made at the spot. It is argued that even though the accused persons contended that no test identification parade was conducted, they themselves refused to participate in the same; hence, they could not take advantage of the absence of test identification parade. It is averred that the accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran and Pawan @ Pammu were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate along with application (Ex. P24/A) for conducting test Identification parade but they suffered their statement denying their test identification. Reference is also made to the statements suffered by the accused, on being associated in the investigation. It is contended that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of doubt and that one of the accused/Sandeep was arrested by the Police at the spot. The minor contradictions on the prosecution evidence are not sufficient to disregard the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The entire link evidence is complete against the accused persons. Recovery of 12 bore double barrel gun of another security guard/Jasbir Singh of the Bank, at the disclosure of co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, .315 bore country-made pistol and one live cartridge from the house of Pawan @ Pammu, and an iron Gidala from co-accused/Sandeep, has been subsequently effected. The charge against the appellants has thus been completely established. He further contends that there is no motive established, on the basis whereof any malice could be alleged against the Police officials to falsely implicate the appellants in the present case. He contends that some of the appellants have criminal

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 18 antecedents, and merely because they have been acquitted in said criminal case, their false implication cannot be assumed automatically. It is submitted that the recovery stood effected pursuant to the disclosures of the accused persons and that the evidence was thus proved against them. 18. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant appeals with their able assistance. 19. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant Sections and the same are extracted as under:-“Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Dacoity: When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”. Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Punishment for Dacoity: Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 19 Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees: Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 20. In the aforesaid background, now it is relevant to make a reference to the specific attribution against the respective accused, role and recovery effected from them. Name of accused Role/attribution Recovery effected Sandeep Apprehended at the One Iron Gidala was spot. recovered from him. He named other accused persons i.e. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar; Pawan @ Pammu; Naresh @ Nikka; and Sunny @ Swaran and Raman. Shammy @ Gaurav Nominated by co- One motor-cycle bearing @ Shammi Kumar accused/Sandeep in registration no.HR-08-his disclosure AA-9448 of black colour and one mobile phone (Ex. P23). A 12 bore double barrel pistol (Ex. P16) of Guard/Jasbir Singh was also recovered from the house of Pawan @

Pammu at his instance. Denied for conducting test identification parade. Pawan @ Pammu Nominated by co- One .315 bore country-accused/Sandeep in made pistol (Ex. P13) his disclosure was recovered from his house. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 20 Denied for conducting test identification parade. Raman Nominated by co- Provided Etios Liva car, accused/Sandeep in used in the commission his subsequent of offence. disclosure. Sunny @ Swaran Nominated by co- No recovery. accused/Sandeep in his subsequent Demarcated place of disclosure. occurrence. Denied for conducting test identification parade. Naresh @ Nikka Nominated by co- No recovery. accused/Sandeep in his subsequent Demarcated place of disclosure and qua occurrence. him supplementary Denied for conducting challan was test identification parade. presented.

21. It is thus evident that insofar as accused/Sandeep is concerned, he was arrested at the spot along with an iron Gidala while co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu was arrested at the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep and recovery of a .315 pistol and one live cartridge were effected at his disclosure from his house. Similar recovery of a double barrel gun of 12 bore of Guard-Jasbir Singh was also effected from the house of Pawan @ Pammu on the disclosure of co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (son of maternal aunt of co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu). One gas cylinder, one gas cutter and a pipe wrench were recovered from the spot. Accused/Sandeep in his disclosure, stated that he, along with other accused persons, namely, Naresh @ Nikka, Pawan @ Pammu, Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, stole one LPG Gas Cylinder, oxygen cylinder and gas cutter from a welding shop. He confessed to having conspired with the aforesaid persons for carrying out the dacoity and having used an iron MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 21 Gidala for opening the shutter of the Bank and also the doors.

22. In his disclosure, Pawan @ Pammu stated that he, along with his friend Raman, had conspired to loot some ATM and joined in Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (son of maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu) along with his friend Sunny @ Swaran. Accused/Raman included Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep in the plan. As per the said disclosure, Raman had carried out a recce of the branch of the Bank and ATM and had planned about the things required for committing dacoity. He also provided the Etios Liva car. Initially, things for cutting the ATM were stolen from the shop and kept in Raman's house, where Raman taught them to use the gas cutter, as he runs a scrap shop and also informed them about the cash being deposited in the Branch.

23. Accused-Naresh @ Nikka was driving the car, and afterwards, Pawan @ Pammu, along with him, held the Guard and tied him to the chair. Naresh @ Nikka continued to stand on Guard with his sword, while Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran, and Sandeep cut the ATM machine with a gas cutter. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar took the double-barrel gun and handed it over to Pawan @ Pammu. Later, the Police came and they all ran away from the spot. He had contended that he, along with Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, went to his house and concealed the .315 bore pistol, and then, along with Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, ran away on his motorcycle to their respective relatives. Accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar acknowledged that Pawan @ Pammu is the son of his maternal Aunt. There was a reiteration in his disclosure similar to Pawan@ MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 22 Pammu.

24. In his disclosure, co-accused/Raman gave similar details as were recorded in the disclosure of Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu. He also stated that he brought the Etios Liva car belonging to his friend-Balihar and gave it to Pawan @ Pammu and others for carrying out the dacoity. He had also suggested that in the event the police arrived at the spot, they would run away by leaving the vehicle and that he would arrange for taking back his car the next day. The disclosure of co-accused/Sunny @ Swaran was also recorded and he disclosed that he was apprised of the idea of committing dacoity by his friend Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and that they had planned about the said dacoity in the shop of Raman. He submitted that he, along with Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu first went to the house of Pawan @ Pammu to hide the weapons and then they absconded together on the motorcycle of Pawan @ Pammu. The disclosure of co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka (Ex. P25) was also recorded, wherein he stated that he and his friend Raman had a plan to loot a bank. In this plan, Raman also associated his friend Pawan @ Pammu. It was alleged by him that Pawan @ Pammu informed him about being in possession of a sword and that they reached at the shop of Raman for executing the above plan. He was driving the vehicle, and he later tied the Guard and stood as a guard on the complainant/Surjeet Singh. No weapon was recovered; only the demarcation of the site plan was carried out at his instance.

25. In light of the aforesaid recoveries and disclosures, the participation of the appellants and their roles as well as criminal culpability MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 23 is being assessed. 26. At the outset, it is essential to examine the relevance and significance of a disclosure and the factors which distinguish it from a confession. “Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: No confession made to a [police-officer] shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a [Magistrate], shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved: Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 27. A confession is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as:

“A criminal suspect’s oral or written acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime.” 28. It is hence an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. 29. An extra-judicial confession is a confession, made out of Court, MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 24 and not as a part of investigation. 30. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused, a confession made by him to a police officer, under any circumstances, while in their custody or not. 31. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes admissible, a confession by a person, made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, while in the custody of the police-whether to the Magistrate or to any other person. 32. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was enacted to put a stop to the extortion of confession, by taking away the advantage of proving such extorted confession. 33. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872-on the other hand subserves investigation. Recovery so made acts as a foundation stone for proceeding with the investigation and completes the chain of events.

34. Once recovery is proved by the prosecution, burden of proof is not only on the defence to rebut the same but also is strict and it would not be discharged merely by pointing at procedural irregularities in making recovery and more so when recovery is corroborated by direct as well as circumstantial evidence. Support in this regard is found also from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and others’ reported as 2017 (6) SCC 1. 35. Hence, even though a confession may be inadmissible, yet, it may lead to discovery of facts, things, documents etc. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the proof of the same. The sole reason behind partial lifting of ban against a confession is that it a fact is actually MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 25 discovered, it extends some semblance of truth of that part only and that part of the information which is the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. The aforesaid position in law is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘‘State of Karnataka Vs. David Razario and another’, reported as (2002) 7 SCC 728. 36. The conditions which thus flow for application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are as under:-“(i) An information given by the suspect should lead to the recovery of the same fact;

(ii) The fact discovered must be one which was not within the knowledge of the police and the knowledge of the fact was for the first time derived from the information given by the accused; (iii) Information given by the accused must lead to discovery of the fact, which is a direct outcome of the information; (iv) The discovery of the fact must be in relation to a material object and would then embrace the mental condition; (v) Only such portion of the information, as is distinctly connected with the discovery is admissible; (vi) The discovery of fact must relate to commission of some offence.” 37. Reference in this regard may also be placed on the judgment in the matter of ‘Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka’ reported as 2007 (9) SCC 315. 38. In order to identify the extent of admissibility, the statement has MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 26 to be dissected. If a person says that he can get recovered a weapon used by him in the crime, only the portion of ‘recovery of weapon’ is the protected part and the fact of the same having been used by him in crime is inadmissible. The same is required to be proved by the agency. The part of confession to crime would then be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

39. Recovery of an object is not a discovery of a fact. The discovery of the material object, though important, but that by itself would not automatically lead to a conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment in the matter of ‘Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan’ reported as AIR 2011 SC 2769. 40. A “fact” has been defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads thus:- “xxxxxx "Fact" means and includes – (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.” 41. The same thus includes both physical and psychological fact. But whether discovery of a fact, referred to in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is in nature of physical fact and not the mental or psychological fact i.e. knowledge, is the other question. The above aspect was discussed in the matter of ‘Pulukuri Kotayya and others Vs. King-Emperor’ reported as AIR 1947 P.C. 67, where it was held that the “fact MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 27

discovered” under Section 27 cannot be equated to an object produced but also embraces the place from where it was discovered and the specific knowledge of the accused about it. It illustrated that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” is not a discovery of knife but to the fact that knife is concealed in the house and if the usage of knife is offence is proved, the fact becomes relevant. But if he says further “with which I stabbed deceased”, these words would be inadmissible as it is a confession of the crime and not discovery of the fact. The above view was re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Udaibhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’ reported as AIR 1962 SC 1116, as held as in ‘Md. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra’ reported as AIR 1976 SC 483 and even later in the matter of ‘State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu’ reported as AIR 2005 SC 3820. 42. It is in the said background that the case now needs to be understood.

43. The trial Court, while considering the respective arguments, rejected the arguments of the defence about the witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution and not identifying the accused persons present in the Court. In reference to the testimony of PW3/Surjeet Singh, the trial Court noticed that one person, Sandeep, was apprehended at the spot, at the time of the occurrence itself. The recovery of the material at the spot, along with weapons and the vehicle used, coupled with the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, lent credibility to the version set forth by the prosecution. It was noticed that under certain circumstances, a common civilian, more so in the capacity as a guard of a bank, could be won over MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 28

either by threat, coercion or for any other considerations; however, the same would not by itself be sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution. It was also recorded that the testimony of PW8/Head Constable Ram Niwas also withstands the test of cross-examination as he was one of the first persons who had reached at the spot when the offence was still in progress. PW1/Sandeep Sharma, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak, has also testified to the presence of the accused/Sandeep at the spot. Hence, merely because Surjeet Singh, the guard, turned hostile, it was held insufficient to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. It was thus reported that the occurrence of the incident in the manner as alleged thus remains beyond doubt, and the participation of the accused/Sandeep, and his being apprehended at the spot is fully established.

44. While adverting to the issue of identity of the remaining accused persons on the ground that no test identification parade was conducted, it was observed that the Investigation Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar had moved an application (Ex. P-24/A) for conducting the test identification parade of the accused i.e. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Pawan @ Pammu and Sunny @ Swaran. A joint statement of the aforesaid accused was recorded (PW16/A) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, wherein the accused refused to get their TIP conducted. Another application (Ex. P27/X) for conducting TIP of accused/Naresh @ Nikka was also moved by the investigating officer, and he too denied his TIP being conducted. The accused were identified by PW8-Head Constable Ram Niwas as well as PW-12/ASI Mukesh Kumar (Investigating Officer). It was thus recorded that the identity was MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 29 established beyond doubt and there was no occasion to disbelieve the same.

45. Adverting to the argument of non-joining of any independent witnesses, the Court had relied upon various judicial precedents and observed that it was not easy to secure the presence of independent witnesses and that merely because an independent witness was not examined or was not associated would not be sufficient to cast any doubt on the testimony and deposition of other witnesses who have nonetheless stepped into the witness box. It was in the aforesaid circumstances and after noticing the respective evidence, recoveries effected at their disclosures, the trial Court recorded its findings against the appellants and sentenced them as extracted above. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to the effect of failure to join the independent witnesses. Further, the proposition of law needs no reiteration that merely because some witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the same would not lead to failure of the entire case of prosecution if there is other supporting and incriminating evidence to corroborate the allegations and prove the case. It is in the said background that the case set up by the prosecution is now being examined.

46. So far as co-accused/Sandeep is concerned, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the trial Court about his involvement and participation in the commission of the offence on the fateful day. His arrest at the spot and his identification by PW8, who was amongst the persons who apprehended him at the spot, establish his presence beyond doubt. Only PW3/Surjeet Singh (complainant) had turned hostile, and his not supporting the case of the prosecution would be inconsequential. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 30 47. The same thus leads to involvement and culpability with respect to roles performed by the other accused, i.e. Pawan @ Pammu, Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran, Raman, and Naresh @ Nikka. Co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu are the sons of the maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu.

48. Disclosure of the accused/Pawan @ Pammu was later recorded on 09.06.2020, wherein he stated that he, along with his friend Raman son of Ram Lal, planned to loot an ATM and that in the said process, he brought in Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Sunny @ Swaran, while Raman brought in Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep son of Rajkumar. Things required for carrying out the dacoity, information regarding the Bank and the cash having been uploaded in the ATM, was allegedly furnished by Raman. Raman also taught them how to use a gas cutter and also allegedly gave the car used for the commission of the offence. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar made his disclosure in similar terms. It has been established that based on disclosure that the .315 bore pistol, along with a live cartridge, was recovered at the disclosure of Pawan @ Pammu from his house. The double barrel 12 bore gun, belonging to the guard of the Bank, was also recovered from his house, but at the disclosure of the accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. The attribution against Sunny @ Swaran was only to the effect that he had accompanied the accused persons for the commission of the offence and then came back along with Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar for hiding the weapons and later escaped on the motorcycle of Pawan @ Pammu before getting down at Rajpura. Only the site plan had been prepared at his disclosure. The version of the MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 31 accused/Sandeep, Pawan @ Pammu and Sunny @ Swaran had so far been consistent; however, while recording the disclosure of co-accused/Raman was followed by a similar disclosure. However, it remains undisputed that the vehicle Etios Liva bearing registration No.HR-02AT-6466, which was recovered at the spot, was registered in the name of one Balihar resident of Dera Garja Singh. The statement of one Balwinder Kaur (wife of said Balihar) was recorded to the effect that she had given the vehicle to Raman, on which the latter had been nominated as accused; however, the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution later in point of time and contended that the vehicle in question had been stolen. A second disclosure of Sandeep was recorded on 08.06.2020, wherein he stated to the effect that Raman son of Ram Lal, had shared his plan of looting an ATM with Pawan @ Pammu and others, but no separate recovery was effected. Thus, the name of Raman, as one of the planners, was nominated by the accused/Sandeep.

49. In his disclosure, co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka recorded on 20.11.2020, he had stated that he, along with Raman, had planned to loot a Bank and later Raman included his friends Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep son of Rajkumar. He stated that he was driving the car in question, which belonged to Raman, bearing registration HR-02AT-6466, and they left the vehicle at the spot and ran away from the place of occurrence. Thus, while accused/Sandeep was arrested at the spot, recovery of double barrel 12 bore gun of Jasbir Singh was effected at the disclosure of Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and the .315 bore pistol was recovered from the accused/Pawan @ Pammu. With respect to the other accused persons, the only evidence available is their disclosure and preparation of the site plan. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 32 50. The demarcation of the site cannot be construed as a discovery of a new fact consequent upon the disclosure of the co-accused, since the site plan was already in the knowledge of the Police.

51. Involvement of the accused/Raman is alleged on twin allegations, firstly for having undertaken a recce of the HDFC Bank and to inform when cash had been loaded in the ATM Machine and secondly about preparing the things required for the commission of the offence and teaching others how to use the gas cutter, which he claimed to know, being a scrap dealer. He is also stated to have provided the Etios Liva Car. The link of Raman with the said case was based solely on the statement of Balwinder Kaur, who has, however, not supported the case of the prosecution while stepping into the witness box. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question is not registered in the name of Raman and there is no evidence, apart from the disclosure of the co-accused, which reflect/indicate his involvement. Similarly, no recovery has been effected pursuant to the disclosure of Sunny @ Swaran and Naresh @ Nikka. 52. For want of discovery of a fact pursuant to the said disclosure, the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act would get attracted. The disclosure is thus nothing more than a confession of the accused, recorded while in police custody. Such a confession is thus not admissible in evidence and hence cannot be read against them. 53. It is thus evident that in so far as role of Raman is concerned, the case against him is that he stole and provided all the cutting tools, information about bank and available cash as well as training to use the cutting machines and also provided the car.

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 33 54. The facts emerge that the car as well as the cutting material was all recovered from the spot. The owner of the car denied giving car to the above accused. Thus all that remains is a confession about his alleged involvement in the offence. The same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Besides, his name came in the second disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep and there is no evidence to establish link/source of the cutting material from the appellant. It is thus held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against him. 55. He is accordingly acquitted of the offences and the judgment of conviction, is set aside qua him, in Criminal Appeal No.2362 of 2024. The role of his co-accused and co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu is however discussed later. 56. Adverting to role of accused/Naresh @ Nikka (CRA-2675-2024). The sole attribution against him is that he was driving the vehicle, ETIOS Liva. The circumstance cited against him is the spot identification and his refusal for subjecting to Test Identification Parade.

57. I am of the view that the involvement of the appellant solely on the basis of his confession, portrayed as a disclosure but bereft of any discovery of fact, and a mere refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade, is not established beyond doubt. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence that could have established the presence of the appellant-accused/Naresh @ Nikka at the spot. Even otherwise, there was an allegation qua him of being armed with a Sword but no such recovery has effected from him. His denial to undergo Test Identification Parade is only a corroborative piece of evidence but in the absence of any other admissible MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 34 evidence, the same would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal CRA-2675-2024 is accordingly allowed and the judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant-accused is discharged in the above case.

58. Next adverting to the case of Sunny @ Swaran (CRA-S-2993-2025). The case against him is also based on disclosure by co-accused and he having fled with co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. He accompanied them to the house of Pawan @ Pammu where weapons were concealed and then escaped on motorcycle with them. Additionally, he demarcated the place of occurrence and refused to undergo Test Identification Parade. There is thus no discovery of any fact at the instance of the appellant-accused/Sunny @ Swaran and his case would thus be similar to co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka in so far other evidence is concerned. The above appeal (CRA-S-2993-2025) is thus allowed and his conviction vide judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Sessions Court is set aside. 59. The same now leads to the case of following accused-appellants: 1 Pawan @ Pammu Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2362-2024 2 Sandeep Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2417-2024 3 Shammy @ Gaurav Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2938-2025 @ Shammi Kumar 60. Undisputedly accused-Sandeep son of Raj Kumar was arrested from the spot and cutting material was recovered from the spot. He also disclosed the names of other accused persons as well as their roles. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 35

61. Co-accused Pawan @ Pammu got recovered the motorcycle used to escape, the mobile phone of the Bank guard Surjeet Singh and later also got recovered one .315 bore pistol as well as live cartridge. He also refused to subject himself to Test Identification Parade. 62. Similarly co-accused Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, who is son of maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu got recovered the 12 bore DBBL of the other guard Jasbir Singh, from the house of co-accused Pawan @ Pammu. He too denied subjecting himself to the Test Identification Parade. Hence, the disclosure of the weapons used by them and the link of these weapons having been established with the offence in question, their refusal to subject to Test Identification Parade corroborates the circumstances and their participation.

63. The question which now comes up is as to for what offences they can be charged. The prosecution has thus been able to bring home offence only against three persons i.e. Sandeep, Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. Since dacoity requires a minimum of 05 persons, the charge and offence under Section 395/120-B IPC would not stand. It also remains undisputed that the accused had come to loot the bank and take away cash. It also remains undisputed that no cash was taken away in the process. The DBBL gun was even though taken away but the same was not the intended property to be robbed and was seemingly taken away for saving themselves out of being fired upon from behind. The offence would thus at best be an attempt to commit robbery punishable under Section 393/120-B IPC. Further, even though appellants were allegedly armed but they did not attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 36 hence, offence under Section 397 IPC would not be made out and instead Section 398 IPC would be attracted. 64. The accused are accordingly held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 393, 398, 427 IPC read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959/120-B IPC.

65. Learned counsel for the appellants were respectively heard on sentence as well and they have reiterated the submissions as made before the Trial Court and submit that the appellants have undergone substantial sentence and that the sentence be reduced. 66. Learned State Counsel however submits that a minimum sentence is provided for offence under Section 398 IPC and it cannot be reduced below the same. It is also submitted that Pawan @ Pammu had one more case under Section 302 IPC although acquitted therein. Co-accused Sandeep too has previous conviction. 67. Having considered the above, the above appeals are partly allowed. While co-accused/Raman (appellant in CRA-S-2362-2024) is acquitted, Pawan @ Pammu is convicted alongwith co-accused/Sandeep (CRA-S-2417-2024) and co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (appellant in CRA-S-2938-2025) for offences as above. The sentence awarded is modified as below:- Name of accused/appellant(s) Section(s) Sentence Pawan @ Pammu, Sandeep and 393/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 04 years Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi with fine of Rs.30,000/- (each) and Kumar in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 06 months each. 398/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 37

427/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each. 25 of the Arms Rigorous imprisonment of 07 years Act, 1959/ with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and 120-B IPC in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 68. All pending misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 29.05.2026 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2675-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full Judgment Naresh @ Nikka …… ...Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2362-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Pawan @ Pammu and another ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2417-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Sandeep ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2938-2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 2 Reserved on:18.04.2026 CRA-S-2993-2025 (O&M) Pronounced on: 29.05.2026 Uploaded on: 31.05.2026 Sunny@ Swaran ...Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant in CRA-S-2675-2024. None for the appellant in CRA-S-2417-2024. Mr. Sunil Polist, Advocate for appellant No.1 in CRA-S-2362-2024.

Mr. K.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellant No.2 in CRA-S-2362-2024. Mr. Sahil Parmar, Advocate for the appellant(s) in CRA-S-2938-2025 and CRA-S-2993-2025. Mr. Paras Talwar, Sr. DAG Haryana. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. 1. These 05 appeals against the judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in Sessions Case No.50 of 2021 (CIS No.SC/138/2020) and arising from FIR bearing No.155 dated 06.06.2020 registered under Sections 395, 397, 427, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar Kaithal, District Kaithal are being decided by this common judgment. For the facility of reference, facts are, however, being extracted from CRA-S-2675-2024 titled as ‘Naresh @ Nikka Vs. The State of Haryana’. 2. Briefly summarized, facts of the present case are that on MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 3

06.06.2020, on receipt of information regarding dacoity in the HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak, the police officials reached at the spot. One of the accused/Sandeep son of Rajkumar, was produced, whereupon the authorities took him in custody. Efforts for the search for the remaining co-accused, who had fled away from the spot, taking advantage of the darkness, were made, but in vain. Later, Surjeet Singh son of Ram Sarup, gave a written complaint in the presence of the Bank Manager of the HDFC Bank, to ASI Randeep Singh, alleging therein that he was appointed as a guard from G.I. Group, Security Company for HDFC Bank and ATM of village Keorak and he had been working there for one year. His duty hours are from 05:00 p.m. to 09:00 a.m. On the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020, while he was doing his duty as usual, four/five persons came in a white-coloured car at about 1:00/1:30 a.m. They were armed with a pistol, sword and iron rods. Out of them, one man caught him (the complainant) from his collar and forcibly took him to the adjacent shop, i.e. Shiv Tent House and pointed a gun at his head. He forcibly took the keys of the bank, snatched his mobile phone and tied him to the chair with the help of a rope. For the entire time, one person remained present near him while the remaining accused persons entered the Bank as well as the ATM and started vandalizing. After some time, a police vehicle arrived in front of the bank blaring its siren. Hearing the same, out of fear, the person who had pointed a gun at him started running and raised an alarm. On hearing and seeing this, the police officials reached at the shop and untied the complainant. Four persons fled away from the spot. The complainant, along with police officials, tried to chase them. The police caught one person; however, the remaining accused succeeded in escaping

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 4 taking advantage of darkness. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his name as Sandeep son of Rajkumar, resident of Nanakpuri Colony, Khurana Road, Kaithal. He got recovered one gas cylinder and a gas cutter from the Bank, with which the accused persons attempted to cut the ATM. The accused persons also took the 12-bore double-barrel gun of the guard, who performed duty in the morning hours; however, they left the ETIOS Liva G vehicle, in which they had come, at the spot. The complainant stated that he could identify the accused persons if they came forward. The Bank Manager also reached at the spot. 3. After recording the statements of witnesses, including complainant-Surjeet Singh, a formal FIR was lodged, the scene of the crime was inspected and thereafter a rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The articles, i.e. one gas cylinder, welding cutter along with rubber pipe, broken cameras, one iron pipe wrench, two locks (steel), and the Car etc., were taken into police possession. Disclosure statement of the accused Sandeep was recorded. Footage from CCTV cameras was also obtained. Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was also received.

4. On 09.06.2020, pursuant to the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, co-accused Pammu alias Pawan and Shammy alias Gaurav were interrogated and arrested. One country-made pistol of .315 bore, along with one live cartridge of .315 bore, was recovered from the store room of the house of the co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu at his disclosure. Co-accused/Shammy alias Gaurav also got recovered a 12 bore, double-barrel pistol, belonging to the Guard, from the store room of his cousin (son of his maternal aunt). MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 5 5. During the investigation, co-accused/Raman and Sunny alias Swaran were also arrested and they suffered their disclosure statements. An application for carrying out Test Identification Parade was also moved before the Illaqa Magistrate but accused-appellant(s)/Sunny alias Swaran, Pammu alias Pawan and Shammy alias Gaurav refused to get their Test Identification Parade conducted. 6. After completion of the investigation, initially a challan against accused-appellant(s)/Sandeep, Pammu alias Pawan, Shammy alias Gaurav, Raman and Sunny alias Swaran was submitted before the Court. On 20.11.2020, after the arrest of accused Naresh alias Nikka, a supplementary Challan qua him was also submitted before the Court. 7. Copy of the Challan and documents attached therewith were supplied to the accused persons.

8. Finding a prima-facie case, accused/Sandeep, Raman, Pawan alias Pammu, Shammy alias Gaurav and Sunny alias Swaran were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 427 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of Arms Act 1959, vide order dated 12.02.2021, whereas co-accused/Naresh alias Nikka was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences, vide order dated 30.07.2021, to which they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Sandeep Sharma, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Koerak, Kaithal. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 6 PW-2 Balwinder Kaur wife of Balihar PW-3 Surjeet Singh son of Shri Ramsaroop PW-4 ASI Ramphal No.285/KTL PW-5 Ravinder Singh, Reader to DM PW-6 ASI Ram Jawari No.78/KTL PW-7 Rishipal, Draftsman PW-8 Head Constable Ram Niwas No.492/KTL PW-9 Inspector Rajphool No.154/KR PW-10 Head Constable Tarsem Kumar No.377/KTL PW-11 Head Constable Manish Kumar No.93/KTL PW-12 Assistant Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar No.6/KTL PW-13 Jasbir Singh son of Shri Sunehra Lal PW-14 Constable Sandeep No.235 CIA-1/Kaithal PW-15 ASI Randeep Singh No.7/KTL PW-16 Neena, Copyist of learned ACJM, Kaithal PW-17 SI Satish Kumar No.846/KTL PW-18 SI Ramesh Chand No.286/KR

The prosecution has also proved the following documents:-Ex.P1 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. Ex.P2 Statement of Balwinder Kaur recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 Registration certificate of vehicle bearing No.HR02AT6466 Ex.P4 Recovery memo of car bearing No.HR02AT-6466 alongwith its registration certificate. Ex.P5 Application/complaint moved to S.H.O. Keorak by MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 7 complainant. Ex.P6 Recovery memo of gas cylinder, gas cutter, a big gas cylinder, pipe wrench, two CCTV cameras, etc. Ex.P7 Disclosure statement of accused Sandeep Kumar Ex.P7 (Corrected as Ex.P7/A) Supplementary statement of complainant. Ex.P8 Sanction order Ex.P9 Test report of country made pistol .315 bore alongwith live cartridge. Ex.P10 Scaled site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P11 Disclosure statement of accused Pammu alias Pawan. Ex.P12 Disclosure statement of accused Shammy alias Gaurav. Ex.P13 Recovery memo of country made pistol .315 bore alongwith sample seal. Ex.P14 Rough sketch of country made pistol. Ex.P15 Rough sketch of licensee gun 12 bore, double barrel. Ex.P16 Recovery memo of gun 12 bore double barrel alongwith sample seal. Ex.PW16/A Joint statement of accused Pammu alias Pawan, Sammy alias Gaurav, Sunny alias Swaran regarding refusal for get conducted their Test Identification Parade.

Ex.P17 Disclosure statement of accused Raman. Ex.PW17/A First Information Report bearing No.155 dated 06.06.2020. Ex.PW17/B Endorsement on the margin of police proceedings. Ex.P18 Disclosure statement of accused Sunny alias Swaran. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 8 Ex.P19 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Pammu alias Pawan. Ex.P20 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Sunny alias Swaran. Ex.P21 Demarcation memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Shammy alias Gaurav. Ex.P22 Recovery memo of photocopy of original licence gun 12 bore double barrel and photocopy of Aadhar Card. Ex.P23 Recovery memo of motorcycle Hero Honda alongwith mobile phone. Ex.P24 Disclosure statement of accused Sandeep. Ex.P24 (Corrected as Ex.P24/A) Application for conducting Test Identification Parade of accused Shammy alias Gaurav, Pammu alias Pawan and Sunny alias Swaran. Ex.P25 Disclosure statement of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P25 (Corrected as Ex.P25/A) Rough site plan of place of recovery of country made pistol .315 bore. Ex.P26 Demarcation memo prepared at the instance of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P26 (Corrected as Ex.P26/A) Rough site plan of place of recovery of country made pistol .315 bore. Ex.P27 Mark A Photocopy of licence of 12 bore gun of Jasbir Singh.

Ex.P27/A Mark B Photocopy of Aadhar Card of Jasbir Singh. Ex.P27/B Reply/endorsement of police underneath application for releasing Gun 12 bore on Superdari in favour of Jasbir Singh. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 9 Ex.P27/C Application for releasing Gun 12 bore on Superdari in favour of Jasbir Singh. Ex.P27 (Corrected as Ex.P27/X) Application for conducting Test Identification Parade of accused Naresh alias Nikka. Ex.P28 Police Proceedings underneath complaint Ex.P5. Ex.P29 Rough site plan of place of occurrence. Ex.P30 Arrest memo of accused Sandeep. Ex.P31 Application moved to Bank Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak. Ex.P32 to Ex.P40 Photographs. Ex.P41 Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act. MO/1 Pen drive MO/1 (Corrected as MO/X) Cylinder of Indane MO/2 One big gas welding cutter alongwith rubber pipe MO/3 Big cylinder MO/4 & MO/5 2 broken CCTV Cameras MO/6 Iron pipe wrench MO/7 One gidala of iron (rod) MO/8 & MO/9 2 locks of steel. MO/10 Country made pistol .315 bore alongwith live cartridge. MO/11 Live Cartridge of pistol .315 bore MO/12 Sample seal MO/13 Mobile phone MO/14 Sample seal. 10. After hearing the respective parties, the trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as follows:- MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 10

Under Section 395 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall pay fine of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) each. In default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months each. Under Section 397 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 07 (Seven) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each and in default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Under Section 427 read All the convicts shall undergo rigorous with Section 120-B of the imprisonment for 02 (Two) years and Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each and in default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Under Section 25 Arms All the convicts shall undergo rigorous Act read with Section imprisonment for 07 (Seven) years and 120-B of IPC shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each. In default thereof convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) months each. Hence, the present appeals.

11. Learned counsel for appellant-Naresh @ Nikka has argued that the appellant has been nominated on the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, recorded while in police custody. The said disclosure is inadmissible against him, since it is not followed by any recovery of any nature whatsoever. Only the demarcation of the place of occurrence has been got conducted MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 11

from the appellant, which is inconsequential since the place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of the police and would not amount to discovery of any fact. It is further contended that no test identification parade was conducted to establish his identity and that PW-3/complainant/Surjeet Singh did not support the case of the prosecution. He was thus declared hostile on account of his failure to identify the appellant-accused in the Court. It is further contended that the other alleged eye-witness i.e. PW8/HC Ram Niwas, has also stated that he is not in a position to identify any of the accused who fled away from the place of occurrence. It is contended that conviction of the appellant rests solely on the disclosure, which is not corroborated and there is no other evidence on record to connect the appellant with the alleged offence. There is a necessity for existence of a link evidence against any accused in addition to the confession. In the absence thereof, it is a weak evidence and it would be improper to record a finding of conviction against an accused.

12. Counsel for the appellant Raman (in CRA-S-2362-2024) contends that the prosecution case is for an attempt to commit dacoity, on the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020, where co-accused/Sandeep was apprehended at the spot. In his first disclosure (Ex.P7), co-accused/Sandeep attributed participation in the offence to four accomplices and did not mention the name of appellant-accused/Raman. It was only in his second disclosure recorded on 08.06.2020 (Ex. P24) that the name of appellant-Raman cropped up for the first time. The attribution against him is that the Etios Liva car used in the commission of the offence and recovered from the spot had been provided by him. He contends that the said vehicle stands MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 12

registered in the name of one Balwinder Kaur, whose’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P2) was recorded on 28.07.2020 to the effect that the vehicle belonged to her husband, Balihar, who was then lodged in District Jail, Kaithal. She also stated that the said car had been given to appellant-accused/Raman about 10 days earlier. The said timelines thus would relate to around 17/18.07.2020, which is much after the date of the incident on the intervening night of 05/06.06.2020. It is further contended that the said witness appeared as PW2 but did not support the case of the prosecution and denied knowing appellant/Raman or ever having entrusted the car to him. Thus, the only link evidence to associate Raman with the commission of the offence ceased to exist. There were no further incriminating circumstances. It is further argued that there is no overt act attributed to the appellant in the commission of the offence of dacoity and that, to sustain his conviction for the said offence, proof of participation of appellant-Raman was required. The said evidence being unavailable on file, the conviction is unsustainable against him and is liable to be set aside. He submits that the vehicle in question had already been recovered from the place of the incident. There being no recovery from the appellant-Raman, hence, the case against him is solely based upon incriminating confession/disclosure by the co-accused.

13. Counsel for appellant Pawan @ Pammu contends that the name of the appellant cropped up in the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep Kumar, and as the eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the presence of the appellant at the spot, hence, his nomination is misplaced. The case in hand is a planted one, and the alleged recovery of MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 13

.315 bore pistol and a mobile phone, which has been effected, does not establish involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted. Counsel further contends that even the condition of the said recovery is sufficient to discard the recovery since it was submitted by PW6/ASI Ram Jawari that the pistol was heavily rusted, whereas PW10/HC Tarsem Kumar specifically acknowledged that no portion of the pistol was rusted. Hence, the contradictory statements about the condition of the weapon reflects tampering of evidence while in Police custody. Counsel further contends that PW12/ASI Mukesh Kumar, stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., said that the grip of the pistol was wooden, whereas on its examination, the weapon was found to have a brass grip. It is submitted that the recovery of the pistol thus becomes suspicious and has to be disregarded. Additionally, no test identification had been conducted. It is submitted that there was only one case against the appellant for the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; however, the appellant already stands acquitted in the said case.

14. No one has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant-Sandeep (in CRA-S-2417-2024) despite the intimation having been specifically sent to the counsel; however, counsel representing the other appellants-accused assisted this Court with respect to appellant-accused/Sandeep as well. The grounds impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the appeal are suggestive to the effect that the complainant/Surjeet Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and no recovery has been effected from him. It is contended that the case is solely based upon the disclosure MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 14 statement and his confession recorded while in police custody, which is inadmissible. It is further contended that the appellant has also undergone an actual sentence of more than 2 years and 05 months.

15. Counsel for the appellant(s) Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (in CRA-S-2938-2025) and Sunny @ Swaran (in CRA-S-2993-2025) contends that the appellants had been nominated as accused on the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep, and they have clean antecedents as they are not involved in any other criminal case. He contends that both the appellants- Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Sunny @ Swaran have undergone an actual sentence of more than 02 years 7 months. He contends that no recovery has been effected from appellant/Sunny @ Swaran, while one 12 bore double barrel gun of guard-Jasbir Singh (who was to report for duty during day hours in the bank) was shown to have been recovered at the instance of appellant/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar from the house of co-accused/ Pawan @ Pammu (who is the son of maternal aunt-Mausi), situated in Kaithal. With respect to the arguments on behalf of Sunny @ Swaran, it is contended that PW3 Surjeet Singh, the eye-witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and specifically stated that the appellants are not the persons who committed the dacoity in the Bank. The disclosure is thus liable to be discarded against the appellant-Sunny @ Swaran. There is no other forensic or scientific evidence that has been collected by the Police to link him with the commission of the offence. It is argued vehemently that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the appellant or establish his presence at the spot. Consequently, the conviction ought to be set aside.

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 15 16. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants-accused. Merely because some of the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution does not mean that there is no evidence establishing participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. It is submitted that PW6/ASI Ram Jawari has specifically submitted that the Investigating Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar handed over to him one sealed parcel, i.e. plastic dibba containing one country-made pistol duly sealed by him ‘MK/2’ along with sample seal MK/1 on 18.06.2020. The sealed parcel was opened and technically examined by him, and a country-made pistol was found to be in working condition. One live cartridge of the same pistol was also taken up and examined, and thereafter, the same was sealed in the presence of the Investigating Officer with a seal of monogram RS/1 and handed over to the IO along with the report Ex. P9. The case property produced before PW6 was approved by him.

17. It is contended by the learned State counsel that further, PW8/Head Constable Ram Niwas has specifically suggested that on the day of the incident, i.e. 06.06.2020, he was working as a Driver in the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-08W-6039, and he joined the investigation of the case. He, along with ASI Randeep Singh and Constable Satish, was on patrolling duty regarding crime detection. When they reached near the ATM of the HDFC Bank Branch, Keorak, they noticed that the light inside the bank was on and they blew the siren of their Govt. vehicle to check the presence of the guard of the Bank. On hearing the same, one person armed with a pistol came running out from the Shiv Tent House shop and ran MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 16

towards the fields and escaped taking advantage of the darkness. When they entered the shop, they noticed the bank guard and rescued him. They also chased the accused person and caught one person, who disclosed his identity as Sandeep son of Rajkumar, resident of Kaithal. They found gas cylinders, a gas cutter, a pipe wrench, one iron gidala on the spot and the same were produced before the Incharge of the Police post Keorak, being the head of the police party. PW10/Head Constable Tarsem Kumar testified that accused/Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar were arrested by the Investigating Officer, and in his presence, one motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-08AA-9448 (Black Colour) and one mobile was taken into possession. Later, from the house of accused/Pawan @ Pammu, one country-made pistol .315 bore, and one live cartridge of the said pistol were recovered, which were converted into a parcel and sealed with seal MK/2 and taken into possession. He also gave the details of the case property, seizure of the same and appended his signature. He further contended that in the same house, later accused/ Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar also got recovered 12 bore licensed gun, which was lying in the store of the said house and a rough sketch of the gun was also prepared, which bears the signatures of HC Randeep Singh. He further deposed that on the disclosure of accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu, co-accused/Raman was arrested from Kaithal and demarcation memos (Ex.P19 to P21) were prepared at the instance of Pawan @ Pammu, Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar respectively. It is further prepared that PW11/Head Constable Manish Kumar supported the same. The Investigating Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 17

proved the case of the prosecution and gave a detailed description of the investigation conducted by him, and also proved the recovery made at the spot. It is argued that even though the accused persons contended that no test identification parade was conducted, they themselves refused to participate in the same; hence, they could not take advantage of the absence of test identification parade. It is averred that the accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran and Pawan @ Pammu were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate along with application (Ex. P24/A) for conducting test Identification parade but they suffered their statement denying their test identification. Reference is also made to the statements suffered by the accused, on being associated in the investigation. It is contended that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond the shadow of doubt and that one of the accused/Sandeep was arrested by the Police at the spot. The minor contradictions on the prosecution evidence are not sufficient to disregard the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The entire link evidence is complete against the accused persons. Recovery of 12 bore double barrel gun of another security guard/Jasbir Singh of the Bank, at the disclosure of co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, .315 bore country-made pistol and one live cartridge from the house of Pawan @ Pammu, and an iron Gidala from co-accused/Sandeep, has been subsequently effected. The charge against the appellants has thus been completely established. He further contends that there is no motive established, on the basis whereof any malice could be alleged against the Police officials to falsely implicate the appellants in the present case. He contends that some of the appellants have criminal

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 18 antecedents, and merely because they have been acquitted in said criminal case, their false implication cannot be assumed automatically. It is submitted that the recovery stood effected pursuant to the disclosures of the accused persons and that the evidence was thus proved against them. 18. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant appeals with their able assistance. 19. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant Sections and the same are extracted as under:-“Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Dacoity: When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”. Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Punishment for Dacoity: Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 19 Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees: Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 20. In the aforesaid background, now it is relevant to make a reference to the specific attribution against the respective accused, role and recovery effected from them. Name of accused Role/attribution Recovery effected Sandeep Apprehended at the One Iron Gidala was spot. recovered from him. He named other accused persons i.e. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar; Pawan @ Pammu; Naresh @ Nikka; and Sunny @ Swaran and Raman. Shammy @ Gaurav Nominated by co- One motor-cycle bearing @ Shammi Kumar accused/Sandeep in registration no.HR-08-his disclosure AA-9448 of black colour and one mobile phone (Ex. P23). A 12 bore double barrel pistol (Ex. P16) of Guard/Jasbir Singh was also recovered from the house of Pawan @

Pammu at his instance. Denied for conducting test identification parade. Pawan @ Pammu Nominated by co- One .315 bore country-accused/Sandeep in made pistol (Ex. P13) his disclosure was recovered from his house. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 20 Denied for conducting test identification parade. Raman Nominated by co- Provided Etios Liva car, accused/Sandeep in used in the commission his subsequent of offence. disclosure. Sunny @ Swaran Nominated by co- No recovery. accused/Sandeep in his subsequent Demarcated place of disclosure. occurrence. Denied for conducting test identification parade. Naresh @ Nikka Nominated by co- No recovery. accused/Sandeep in his subsequent Demarcated place of disclosure and qua occurrence. him supplementary Denied for conducting challan was test identification parade. presented.

21. It is thus evident that insofar as accused/Sandeep is concerned, he was arrested at the spot along with an iron Gidala while co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu was arrested at the disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep and recovery of a .315 pistol and one live cartridge were effected at his disclosure from his house. Similar recovery of a double barrel gun of 12 bore of Guard-Jasbir Singh was also effected from the house of Pawan @ Pammu on the disclosure of co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (son of maternal aunt of co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu). One gas cylinder, one gas cutter and a pipe wrench were recovered from the spot. Accused/Sandeep in his disclosure, stated that he, along with other accused persons, namely, Naresh @ Nikka, Pawan @ Pammu, Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, stole one LPG Gas Cylinder, oxygen cylinder and gas cutter from a welding shop. He confessed to having conspired with the aforesaid persons for carrying out the dacoity and having used an iron MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 21 Gidala for opening the shutter of the Bank and also the doors.

22. In his disclosure, Pawan @ Pammu stated that he, along with his friend Raman, had conspired to loot some ATM and joined in Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (son of maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu) along with his friend Sunny @ Swaran. Accused/Raman included Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep in the plan. As per the said disclosure, Raman had carried out a recce of the branch of the Bank and ATM and had planned about the things required for committing dacoity. He also provided the Etios Liva car. Initially, things for cutting the ATM were stolen from the shop and kept in Raman's house, where Raman taught them to use the gas cutter, as he runs a scrap shop and also informed them about the cash being deposited in the Branch.

23. Accused-Naresh @ Nikka was driving the car, and afterwards, Pawan @ Pammu, along with him, held the Guard and tied him to the chair. Naresh @ Nikka continued to stand on Guard with his sword, while Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran, and Sandeep cut the ATM machine with a gas cutter. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar took the double-barrel gun and handed it over to Pawan @ Pammu. Later, the Police came and they all ran away from the spot. He had contended that he, along with Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, went to his house and concealed the .315 bore pistol, and then, along with Sunny @ Swaran and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, ran away on his motorcycle to their respective relatives. Accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar acknowledged that Pawan @ Pammu is the son of his maternal Aunt. There was a reiteration in his disclosure similar to Pawan@ MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 22 Pammu.

24. In his disclosure, co-accused/Raman gave similar details as were recorded in the disclosure of Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu. He also stated that he brought the Etios Liva car belonging to his friend-Balihar and gave it to Pawan @ Pammu and others for carrying out the dacoity. He had also suggested that in the event the police arrived at the spot, they would run away by leaving the vehicle and that he would arrange for taking back his car the next day. The disclosure of co-accused/Sunny @ Swaran was also recorded and he disclosed that he was apprised of the idea of committing dacoity by his friend Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and that they had planned about the said dacoity in the shop of Raman. He submitted that he, along with Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu first went to the house of Pawan @ Pammu to hide the weapons and then they absconded together on the motorcycle of Pawan @ Pammu. The disclosure of co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka (Ex. P25) was also recorded, wherein he stated that he and his friend Raman had a plan to loot a bank. In this plan, Raman also associated his friend Pawan @ Pammu. It was alleged by him that Pawan @ Pammu informed him about being in possession of a sword and that they reached at the shop of Raman for executing the above plan. He was driving the vehicle, and he later tied the Guard and stood as a guard on the complainant/Surjeet Singh. No weapon was recovered; only the demarcation of the site plan was carried out at his instance.

25. In light of the aforesaid recoveries and disclosures, the participation of the appellants and their roles as well as criminal culpability MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 23 is being assessed. 26. At the outset, it is essential to examine the relevance and significance of a disclosure and the factors which distinguish it from a confession. “Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: No confession made to a [police-officer] shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a [Magistrate], shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved: Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 27. A confession is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as:

“A criminal suspect’s oral or written acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime.” 28. It is hence an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. 29. An extra-judicial confession is a confession, made out of Court, MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 24 and not as a part of investigation. 30. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused, a confession made by him to a police officer, under any circumstances, while in their custody or not. 31. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes admissible, a confession by a person, made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, while in the custody of the police-whether to the Magistrate or to any other person. 32. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was enacted to put a stop to the extortion of confession, by taking away the advantage of proving such extorted confession. 33. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872-on the other hand subserves investigation. Recovery so made acts as a foundation stone for proceeding with the investigation and completes the chain of events.

34. Once recovery is proved by the prosecution, burden of proof is not only on the defence to rebut the same but also is strict and it would not be discharged merely by pointing at procedural irregularities in making recovery and more so when recovery is corroborated by direct as well as circumstantial evidence. Support in this regard is found also from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and others’ reported as 2017 (6) SCC 1. 35. Hence, even though a confession may be inadmissible, yet, it may lead to discovery of facts, things, documents etc. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits the proof of the same. The sole reason behind partial lifting of ban against a confession is that it a fact is actually MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 25 discovered, it extends some semblance of truth of that part only and that part of the information which is the clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. The aforesaid position in law is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘‘State of Karnataka Vs. David Razario and another’, reported as (2002) 7 SCC 728. 36. The conditions which thus flow for application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are as under:-“(i) An information given by the suspect should lead to the recovery of the same fact;

(ii) The fact discovered must be one which was not within the knowledge of the police and the knowledge of the fact was for the first time derived from the information given by the accused; (iii) Information given by the accused must lead to discovery of the fact, which is a direct outcome of the information; (iv) The discovery of the fact must be in relation to a material object and would then embrace the mental condition; (v) Only such portion of the information, as is distinctly connected with the discovery is admissible; (vi) The discovery of fact must relate to commission of some offence.” 37. Reference in this regard may also be placed on the judgment in the matter of ‘Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka’ reported as 2007 (9) SCC 315. 38. In order to identify the extent of admissibility, the statement has MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 26 to be dissected. If a person says that he can get recovered a weapon used by him in the crime, only the portion of ‘recovery of weapon’ is the protected part and the fact of the same having been used by him in crime is inadmissible. The same is required to be proved by the agency. The part of confession to crime would then be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

39. Recovery of an object is not a discovery of a fact. The discovery of the material object, though important, but that by itself would not automatically lead to a conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment in the matter of ‘Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan’ reported as AIR 2011 SC 2769. 40. A “fact” has been defined under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same reads thus:- “xxxxxx "Fact" means and includes – (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.” 41. The same thus includes both physical and psychological fact. But whether discovery of a fact, referred to in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is in nature of physical fact and not the mental or psychological fact i.e. knowledge, is the other question. The above aspect was discussed in the matter of ‘Pulukuri Kotayya and others Vs. King-Emperor’ reported as AIR 1947 P.C. 67, where it was held that the “fact MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 27

discovered” under Section 27 cannot be equated to an object produced but also embraces the place from where it was discovered and the specific knowledge of the accused about it. It illustrated that “I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” is not a discovery of knife but to the fact that knife is concealed in the house and if the usage of knife is offence is proved, the fact becomes relevant. But if he says further “with which I stabbed deceased”, these words would be inadmissible as it is a confession of the crime and not discovery of the fact. The above view was re-iterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Udaibhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh’ reported as AIR 1962 SC 1116, as held as in ‘Md. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra’ reported as AIR 1976 SC 483 and even later in the matter of ‘State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu’ reported as AIR 2005 SC 3820. 42. It is in the said background that the case now needs to be understood.

43. The trial Court, while considering the respective arguments, rejected the arguments of the defence about the witnesses not supporting the case of the prosecution and not identifying the accused persons present in the Court. In reference to the testimony of PW3/Surjeet Singh, the trial Court noticed that one person, Sandeep, was apprehended at the spot, at the time of the occurrence itself. The recovery of the material at the spot, along with weapons and the vehicle used, coupled with the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, lent credibility to the version set forth by the prosecution. It was noticed that under certain circumstances, a common civilian, more so in the capacity as a guard of a bank, could be won over MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 28

either by threat, coercion or for any other considerations; however, the same would not by itself be sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution. It was also recorded that the testimony of PW8/Head Constable Ram Niwas also withstands the test of cross-examination as he was one of the first persons who had reached at the spot when the offence was still in progress. PW1/Sandeep Sharma, Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Keorak, has also testified to the presence of the accused/Sandeep at the spot. Hence, merely because Surjeet Singh, the guard, turned hostile, it was held insufficient to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. It was thus reported that the occurrence of the incident in the manner as alleged thus remains beyond doubt, and the participation of the accused/Sandeep, and his being apprehended at the spot is fully established.

44. While adverting to the issue of identity of the remaining accused persons on the ground that no test identification parade was conducted, it was observed that the Investigation Officer/ASI Mukesh Kumar had moved an application (Ex. P-24/A) for conducting the test identification parade of the accused i.e. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Pawan @ Pammu and Sunny @ Swaran. A joint statement of the aforesaid accused was recorded (PW16/A) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, wherein the accused refused to get their TIP conducted. Another application (Ex. P27/X) for conducting TIP of accused/Naresh @ Nikka was also moved by the investigating officer, and he too denied his TIP being conducted. The accused were identified by PW8-Head Constable Ram Niwas as well as PW-12/ASI Mukesh Kumar (Investigating Officer). It was thus recorded that the identity was MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 29 established beyond doubt and there was no occasion to disbelieve the same.

45. Adverting to the argument of non-joining of any independent witnesses, the Court had relied upon various judicial precedents and observed that it was not easy to secure the presence of independent witnesses and that merely because an independent witness was not examined or was not associated would not be sufficient to cast any doubt on the testimony and deposition of other witnesses who have nonetheless stepped into the witness box. It was in the aforesaid circumstances and after noticing the respective evidence, recoveries effected at their disclosures, the trial Court recorded its findings against the appellants and sentenced them as extracted above. This Court finds no reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the trial Court with respect to the effect of failure to join the independent witnesses. Further, the proposition of law needs no reiteration that merely because some witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the same would not lead to failure of the entire case of prosecution if there is other supporting and incriminating evidence to corroborate the allegations and prove the case. It is in the said background that the case set up by the prosecution is now being examined.

46. So far as co-accused/Sandeep is concerned, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the finding recorded by the trial Court about his involvement and participation in the commission of the offence on the fateful day. His arrest at the spot and his identification by PW8, who was amongst the persons who apprehended him at the spot, establish his presence beyond doubt. Only PW3/Surjeet Singh (complainant) had turned hostile, and his not supporting the case of the prosecution would be inconsequential. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 30 47. The same thus leads to involvement and culpability with respect to roles performed by the other accused, i.e. Pawan @ Pammu, Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, Sunny @ Swaran, Raman, and Naresh @ Nikka. Co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Pawan @ Pammu are the sons of the maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu.

48. Disclosure of the accused/Pawan @ Pammu was later recorded on 09.06.2020, wherein he stated that he, along with his friend Raman son of Ram Lal, planned to loot an ATM and that in the said process, he brought in Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and Sunny @ Swaran, while Raman brought in Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep son of Rajkumar. Things required for carrying out the dacoity, information regarding the Bank and the cash having been uploaded in the ATM, was allegedly furnished by Raman. Raman also taught them how to use a gas cutter and also allegedly gave the car used for the commission of the offence. Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar made his disclosure in similar terms. It has been established that based on disclosure that the .315 bore pistol, along with a live cartridge, was recovered at the disclosure of Pawan @ Pammu from his house. The double barrel 12 bore gun, belonging to the guard of the Bank, was also recovered from his house, but at the disclosure of the accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. The attribution against Sunny @ Swaran was only to the effect that he had accompanied the accused persons for the commission of the offence and then came back along with Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar for hiding the weapons and later escaped on the motorcycle of Pawan @ Pammu before getting down at Rajpura. Only the site plan had been prepared at his disclosure. The version of the MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 31 accused/Sandeep, Pawan @ Pammu and Sunny @ Swaran had so far been consistent; however, while recording the disclosure of co-accused/Raman was followed by a similar disclosure. However, it remains undisputed that the vehicle Etios Liva bearing registration No.HR-02AT-6466, which was recovered at the spot, was registered in the name of one Balihar resident of Dera Garja Singh. The statement of one Balwinder Kaur (wife of said Balihar) was recorded to the effect that she had given the vehicle to Raman, on which the latter had been nominated as accused; however, the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution later in point of time and contended that the vehicle in question had been stolen. A second disclosure of Sandeep was recorded on 08.06.2020, wherein he stated to the effect that Raman son of Ram Lal, had shared his plan of looting an ATM with Pawan @ Pammu and others, but no separate recovery was effected. Thus, the name of Raman, as one of the planners, was nominated by the accused/Sandeep.

49. In his disclosure, co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka recorded on 20.11.2020, he had stated that he, along with Raman, had planned to loot a Bank and later Raman included his friends Naresh @ Nikka and Sandeep son of Rajkumar. He stated that he was driving the car in question, which belonged to Raman, bearing registration HR-02AT-6466, and they left the vehicle at the spot and ran away from the place of occurrence. Thus, while accused/Sandeep was arrested at the spot, recovery of double barrel 12 bore gun of Jasbir Singh was effected at the disclosure of Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar and the .315 bore pistol was recovered from the accused/Pawan @ Pammu. With respect to the other accused persons, the only evidence available is their disclosure and preparation of the site plan. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 32 50. The demarcation of the site cannot be construed as a discovery of a new fact consequent upon the disclosure of the co-accused, since the site plan was already in the knowledge of the Police.

51. Involvement of the accused/Raman is alleged on twin allegations, firstly for having undertaken a recce of the HDFC Bank and to inform when cash had been loaded in the ATM Machine and secondly about preparing the things required for the commission of the offence and teaching others how to use the gas cutter, which he claimed to know, being a scrap dealer. He is also stated to have provided the Etios Liva Car. The link of Raman with the said case was based solely on the statement of Balwinder Kaur, who has, however, not supported the case of the prosecution while stepping into the witness box. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question is not registered in the name of Raman and there is no evidence, apart from the disclosure of the co-accused, which reflect/indicate his involvement. Similarly, no recovery has been effected pursuant to the disclosure of Sunny @ Swaran and Naresh @ Nikka. 52. For want of discovery of a fact pursuant to the said disclosure, the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act would get attracted. The disclosure is thus nothing more than a confession of the accused, recorded while in police custody. Such a confession is thus not admissible in evidence and hence cannot be read against them. 53. It is thus evident that in so far as role of Raman is concerned, the case against him is that he stole and provided all the cutting tools, information about bank and available cash as well as training to use the cutting machines and also provided the car.

MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 33 54. The facts emerge that the car as well as the cutting material was all recovered from the spot. The owner of the car denied giving car to the above accused. Thus all that remains is a confession about his alleged involvement in the offence. The same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Besides, his name came in the second disclosure of co-accused/Sandeep and there is no evidence to establish link/source of the cutting material from the appellant. It is thus held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against him. 55. He is accordingly acquitted of the offences and the judgment of conviction, is set aside qua him, in Criminal Appeal No.2362 of 2024. The role of his co-accused and co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu is however discussed later. 56. Adverting to role of accused/Naresh @ Nikka (CRA-2675-2024). The sole attribution against him is that he was driving the vehicle, ETIOS Liva. The circumstance cited against him is the spot identification and his refusal for subjecting to Test Identification Parade.

57. I am of the view that the involvement of the appellant solely on the basis of his confession, portrayed as a disclosure but bereft of any discovery of fact, and a mere refusal to undergo Test Identification Parade, is not established beyond doubt. The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence that could have established the presence of the appellant-accused/Naresh @ Nikka at the spot. Even otherwise, there was an allegation qua him of being armed with a Sword but no such recovery has effected from him. His denial to undergo Test Identification Parade is only a corroborative piece of evidence but in the absence of any other admissible MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 34 evidence, the same would not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal CRA-2675-2024 is accordingly allowed and the judgment of conviction is set aside. The appellant-accused is discharged in the above case.

58. Next adverting to the case of Sunny @ Swaran (CRA-S-2993-2025). The case against him is also based on disclosure by co-accused and he having fled with co-accused/Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. He accompanied them to the house of Pawan @ Pammu where weapons were concealed and then escaped on motorcycle with them. Additionally, he demarcated the place of occurrence and refused to undergo Test Identification Parade. There is thus no discovery of any fact at the instance of the appellant-accused/Sunny @ Swaran and his case would thus be similar to co-accused/Naresh @ Nikka in so far other evidence is concerned. The above appeal (CRA-S-2993-2025) is thus allowed and his conviction vide judgment dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Sessions Court is set aside. 59. The same now leads to the case of following accused-appellants: 1 Pawan @ Pammu Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2362-2024 2 Sandeep Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2417-2024 3 Shammy @ Gaurav Appellant-accused in CRA-S-2938-2025 @ Shammi Kumar 60. Undisputedly accused-Sandeep son of Raj Kumar was arrested from the spot and cutting material was recovered from the spot. He also disclosed the names of other accused persons as well as their roles. MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 35

61. Co-accused Pawan @ Pammu got recovered the motorcycle used to escape, the mobile phone of the Bank guard Surjeet Singh and later also got recovered one .315 bore pistol as well as live cartridge. He also refused to subject himself to Test Identification Parade. 62. Similarly co-accused Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar, who is son of maternal aunt of Pawan @ Pammu got recovered the 12 bore DBBL of the other guard Jasbir Singh, from the house of co-accused Pawan @ Pammu. He too denied subjecting himself to the Test Identification Parade. Hence, the disclosure of the weapons used by them and the link of these weapons having been established with the offence in question, their refusal to subject to Test Identification Parade corroborates the circumstances and their participation.

63. The question which now comes up is as to for what offences they can be charged. The prosecution has thus been able to bring home offence only against three persons i.e. Sandeep, Pawan @ Pammu and Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar. Since dacoity requires a minimum of 05 persons, the charge and offence under Section 395/120-B IPC would not stand. It also remains undisputed that the accused had come to loot the bank and take away cash. It also remains undisputed that no cash was taken away in the process. The DBBL gun was even though taken away but the same was not the intended property to be robbed and was seemingly taken away for saving themselves out of being fired upon from behind. The offence would thus at best be an attempt to commit robbery punishable under Section 393/120-B IPC. Further, even though appellants were allegedly armed but they did not attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 36 hence, offence under Section 397 IPC would not be made out and instead Section 398 IPC would be attracted. 64. The accused are accordingly held guilty of having committed offences under Sections 393, 398, 427 IPC read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959/120-B IPC.

65. Learned counsel for the appellants were respectively heard on sentence as well and they have reiterated the submissions as made before the Trial Court and submit that the appellants have undergone substantial sentence and that the sentence be reduced. 66. Learned State Counsel however submits that a minimum sentence is provided for offence under Section 398 IPC and it cannot be reduced below the same. It is also submitted that Pawan @ Pammu had one more case under Section 302 IPC although acquitted therein. Co-accused Sandeep too has previous conviction. 67. Having considered the above, the above appeals are partly allowed. While co-accused/Raman (appellant in CRA-S-2362-2024) is acquitted, Pawan @ Pammu is convicted alongwith co-accused/Sandeep (CRA-S-2417-2024) and co-accused/Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi Kumar (appellant in CRA-S-2938-2025) for offences as above. The sentence awarded is modified as below:- Name of accused/appellant(s) Section(s) Sentence Pawan @ Pammu, Sandeep and 393/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 04 years Shammy @ Gaurav @ Shammi with fine of Rs.30,000/- (each) and Kumar in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 06 months each. 398/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2675-2024 and 04 other connected cases 37

427/120-B IPC Rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each. 25 of the Arms Rigorous imprisonment of 07 years Act, 1959/ with fine of Rs.10,000/- (each) and 120-B IPC in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment of 02 months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 68. All pending misc. application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 29.05.2026 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2026.05.31 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document