PNB heist: Trio acquitted of robbery but gets 3-yr jail for possessing stolen property

Additional sessions judge Vikrant Kumar has awarded the trio, identified as Sandeep Khurmi, Sonu and Ravi Kothari, three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Six years after masked men robbed ₹4 lakh from the Punjab National Bank’s (PNB) Phase 3A branch, a Mohali court acquitted three persons of charges of robbery and sections of the Arms Act while holding them guilty of possessing the stolen cash.

The case dates to June 17, 2020, when three masked men entered the bank around 1.40pm. One pointed a pistol at head cashier Shruti Aggarwal while another one took ₹4 lakh. (HT File)

Additional sessions judge Vikrant Kumar has awarded the trio, identified as Sandeep Khurmi, Sonu and Ravi Kothari, three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Their custody period will be set off against the sentence. In case of default in paying the fine, they will have to serve six additional months in jail.

The case

The case dates to June 17, 2020, when three masked men entered the bank around 1.40pm. One pointed a pistol at head cashier Shruti Aggarwal while another one took ₹4 lakh. The third, carrying a knife, threatened other staff members. The entire crime was executed in a span of five minutes.

During the trial, five bank employees, including branch manager Amarjit Kaur, described the robbery but failed to identify the three accused. They said that the robbers had covered their faces. The court held that prosecution’s evidence did not establish that Sandeep, Sonu or Ravi were the men who committed the robbery.

The prosecution relied on recoveries made after their arrests. Police recovered ₹1 lakh and a knife from Sandeep, ₹1 lakh and a toy air pistol from Sonu, and ₹50,000 from Ravi. Further recoveries of ₹51,000 from Sandeep and ₹50,000 from Sonu were also recorded. The court accepted the recovery evidence and held that the money was connected to the bank robbery.

Defence’s ‘plant’ claim rejected

The defence argued that police had planted the recoveries on the accused and failed to get independent witnesses on board during the arrests. The court rejected the argument, noting that the investigating officer had tried to associate local persons, but they declined. It held that defective investigation alone was not enough to discard otherwise acceptable evidence.