Dacoity Case: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside Conviction Of Six Persons After More Than 20 Years Of Trial Court’s Decision
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench in a case relating to dacoity has set aside the conviction of six persons who were convicted by the Trial Court in the year 2001.
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held, “… viewing from any angle, there seems no justification to rely upon the evidence available on record or to base conviction of the accused appellants for offence under Section 395 of the IPC rather the attraction of Section 395 of the IPC and framing of charge under it is per-se illegal in view of the evidence brought on record.”
The Bench said that the trial judge failed to take into account the legal aspect of the matter which is the spine of the case while appreciating the evidence and reaching the conclusion of guilt of the accused and thus, the same does not stand firm on its ground.
“… it is more than clear that neither the prosecution succeeded in establishing the fact that the appellants were the same persons who stopped the car or removed the bag of currency notes from the car since no identification was conducted nor has it been established beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged recovery of currency notes belonged to the complainant or that they were the same as the complainant claimed. The absence of bag and evidence regarding its specification creates further doubt upon the genuineness of the allegation”, also said the Court.
Advocates D.S. Udawat, Shreyash Ramdev, and Manish Bhargav represented the appellants while AGA Gaurav Singh represented the respondents.
In this case, two appeals were preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Cr.PC. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand. The Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.
An FIR was lodged by the informant alleging he handed over a bag to two persons containing cash amounting to Rs. 45 lakhs and a demand draft of Rs. 36 lakhs which were to be carried to Ahmedabad. When the car was passing through the area of the police station, 4-5 policemen stopped the car and searched it but did not find anything and hence, set it free. However, on registration of the FIR by the informant, the police arrested the appellants during the course of the investigation, and then a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and 28,28,000/- was recovered.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel noted, “In the present set of facts and circumstances, neither the five ingredients of the offence of theft are made out nor are the ingredients of the offence of extortion are present and since the offence of robbery can only be committed by way of committing either of the two, thus, it can be concluded that the offence of robbery was not committed as the ingredients essential to constitute the offence are conspicuously absent.”
The Court reiterated that the offence of dacoity is nothing new but an offence of robbery committed or attempted to have committed by five or more persons conjointly.
Therefore, the Court reversed the finding arrived at by the trial court based on the following considerations:
“a) The credence of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses No.(s) 2 and 3 is doubtful and cannot be relied upon as there are several laches and they are not believable in any manner in view of their unnatural conduct and defective testimony on vital aspect of the matter.
b) No identification parade was conducted to ascertain the identity of the persons who allegedly intercepted the vehicle and conducted the search as well as the identity of the property in question. This amounts to being a crater in the surface of the case of the prosecution that remained unplugged throughout the course of investigation and the trial.
c) There are two witnesses to verify the factum of recovery, however, both have not supported the story of the prosecution, thus, maintaining conviction which is based upon recovery alone would not be wise.
d) Even if the facts narrated by the prosecution witnesses are taken on their face value, no offence of robbery/dacoity as defined under the Code is made out.
e) Prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus that lies upon it to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court concluded that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to substantiate the charge alleged and therefore, the judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the conviction of the appellants.
Cause Title- Bhagwat Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
