The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of two appellants in a 50-year-old dacoity case, ruling that a conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be sustained if the number of participating accused falls below five. Justice Avnish Saxena allowed the criminal appeal filed in 1984, acquitting the appellants of all charges due to lack of evidence and technical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Case Background
The appeal, Ramphal And Others vs. State of U.P., challenged the judgment dated April 24, 1984, passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Jhansi. The trial court had convicted Ramphal and Dhuram under Section 395 IPC (dacoity), sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Appellant Ramphal was additionally convicted under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution’s case dated back to January 19, 1975. According to the police, a tip-off was received at 11:30 a.m. stating that 8 to 9 miscreants were extorting passersby near Pearghata, Jhansi. A police party intercepted the group, leading to an alleged cross-firing. While most miscreants fled, Ramphal and Dhuram allegedly surrendered. The police claimed to have recovered a country-made pistol, cartridges, and looted items from the accused.
Six accused were initially charge-sheeted: Hindupat Lodhi, Ramratan, Ramphal, Dhuram, Sukhainya Chamar, and Tijua Teli. During the trial, Sukhainya Chamar and Tijua Teli were discharged, and Hindupat Lodhi and Ramratan were acquitted, leaving only the two appellants convicted.
Arguments
The counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction under Section 395 IPC was legally flawed. It was submitted that since two accused were discharged and two were acquitted, the remaining number of accused was less than five, which is the minimum requirement for constituting the offence of dacoity.
The defense further contended that the appellants were falsely implicated following an altercation with police personnel at a dhaba. They pointed out significant lapses in the prosecution’s version, including the non-examination of key independent witnesses and the absence of any gunshot injuries despite claims of a shootout.
The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellants were caught at the spot and identified by witnesses. The prosecution relied on the recovery of looted articles and the testimony of police witnesses.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Avnish Saxena meticulously examined the evidence and the legal question regarding the applicability of Section 395 IPC.
1. Requirement of Five Persons for Dacoity The Court referred to Section 391 IPC, which defines dacoity as an act committed by five or more persons. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Lakhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1983), the High Court observed that since the number of convicted persons had fallen below five, the charge of dacoity could not stand.
The Court noted:
“In the present case even the charge is framed for dacoity against less than five accused. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone.”
2. Inconsistencies in Evidence The Court found severe discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative.
- Non-examination of Star Witnesses: The prosecution failed to produce the two alleged victims, Lakhan Singh and Baldev Prasad Khare, who were reportedly being extorted during the incident.
- Doubts on Police Encounter: The Court observed that despite claims of indiscriminate cross-firing, no one suffered any gunshot injuries.
- Unreliable Independent Witness: The testimony of P.W.-2 Nepal Singh, projected as an independent witness, was found to be inconsistent regarding the time of the tip-off and his presence at the scene. The Court remarked that he appeared to be a “framed witness.”
- Sham Identification: The identification of recovered clothes was termed a “sham” as no specific particulars were mentioned in the recovery memo.
The Court observed that the site plan showed a forest on both sides of the road, yet only two accused surrendered while others sprinted away. This circumstance lent credence to the defense’s plea that they were picked up from a dhaba.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), the Court reiterated that if a plausible view different from the trial court can be taken, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.
Decision
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1977.
“The appellants cannot be held guilty for offence of dacoity or any other minor offence and liable to be acquitted… as the trial court has incorrectly adduced evidence,” the judgment stated.
The appeal was allowed, and the appellants, Ramphal and Dhuram, were acquitted of all charges.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ramphal And Others vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 1984
- Coram: Justice Avnish Saxena
- Counsel for Appellants: Kamta Prasad, Shashank Kumar, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Virendra Singh
- Counsel for State: Parmar, A.G.A.
