This case pertains to a meticulously executed cash van heist involving the theft of ₹2.36 crores during transit between Axis Bank branches. The incident occurred on March 7, 2013, on a national highway in Maharashtra. The accused used fake police identification and firearms to overpower the cash van staff and orchestrate the robbery. The trial convicted several accused under Sections 395, 397, 120B, and 342 of the IPC, while some accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence. The court's judgment emphasized the importance of robust evidence to prove conspiracies and the need for accurate investigative procedures.

ACTS AND SECTIONS DISCUSSED:

• Section 395 (Dacoity): Conviction of accused for direct involvement.
• Section 397 (Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt): Highlighted in cases involving use of firearms during the crime.
• Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy): For planning and executing the crime.
• Section 342 (Wrongful Confinement): For locking the cash van staff in the vault post-robbery.

1. The Incident

• A cash van transporting ₹2.36 crores from Axis Bank Akola was stopped on the highway by individuals posing as police officers.
• Armed robbers forcibly took control of the van, eventually transferring the cash into their vehicle.
• The cash van staff was locked in the vault, later freed by locals.

2. Investigation Details

• First arrests made within days, with substantial cash recovered from various accused.
• Significant lapses in collecting and validating evidence such as bank remittance records and GPS data of the cash van.

3. Identification of Accused

• Test Identification Parades were conducted but deemed compromised due to procedural irregularities.
• Witness statements provided conflicting accounts of the events, raising doubts.

4. Legal Findings

• Convictions secured based on recovery of stolen cash and involvement in planning.
• Acquittals due to insufficient evidence connecting accused to the core robbery.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. Evidence Requirements: Failure to provide consistent evidence about the loaded cash weakened the prosecution’s case for certain accused.
2. Procedural Gaps: Investigation lapses, such as non-collection of GPS data and lack of corroboration of critical documents, influenced judicial scrutiny.
3. Independent Witnesses: Absence of third-party testimony raised doubts about the events as narrated.

Subjects:

Cash Van Robbery: Analysis of Criminal Accountability and Investigative Flaws

#DacoityCase #CriminalLaw #InvestigativeFlaws #CashVanRobbery #JudicialAnalysis #IPC395