Back
J.M.SHELAT, Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, I.D.DUA
Saktu – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
What is the sufficiency of evidence to convict multiple accused of dacoity under Section 395 IPC when the High Court acquitted some due to lack of identity or enmity? What is the validity of convicting accused of dacoity when the group involved appears to be fewer than five persons, considering the principle in Ram Shankar Singh v. State of UP? How to assess delays in filing the First Information Report (F.I.R.) in dacoity cases and its impact on the reliability of prosecution evidence?
Key Points: - The Supreme Court upheld conviction of accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 for dacoity under IPC 395, with corroboration by eyewitnesses, despite earlier acquittals of others by the High Court (!) . - It held that there was no substantial delay in lodging the F.I.R. given the distance of the police station from the scene and absence of enmity between complainant Jwala Prasad and the appellants (!) . - The Court rejected the argument that only fewer than five persons participated in the dacoity, noting multiple witnesses identified the appellants and that the constellated group could still constitute dacoity per evidence (!) . - The High Court’s acquittals on grounds of potential enmity did not compel reversal of conviction for the appellants where there was no demonstrated enmity against them personally (!) . - The appeal by special leave was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence (!) . - The case involved an incident on the night of 25-26 March 1965 in Vaibahi, Bahraich, with 15-16 dacoits entering Jwala Prasad’s house and looting property; a witness fire-set by a neighbor helped identify the dacoits (!) . - The judgment discusses identification by independent witnesses (Kallu, Gokul, Chandra Bhan, Mangrey, Waris, etc.) as substantive evidence against appellants (!) . - The FIR was lodged at 10 a.m. on the 26th, about 9 hours after the occurrence at 1 a.m., and the Court found this timing consistent with reliability (!) . - The Court treated accused No. 10 as acquitted by the trial court and confirmed conviction/sentence of the remaining accused (!) . - Overall holding: Appeal dismissed; convictions for those identified and charged under Sections 395, 397, and 412 IPC affirmed (!) .
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, J. :- Eleven persons were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bahraich for offences under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted accused No. 10 but convicted the others. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 were convicted under Section 395 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. In appeal the High Court of Allahabad upheld the conviction of accused Nos. 1, 6 and 7 only. This appeal by special leave is filed by accused Nos. 6 and 7 against that judgment.
2. The incident out of which the prosecution arises happened on the night between the 25th and 26th March, 1965 in the village of Vaibahi District Bahraich. The complainant, Jwala Prasad, heard some noise at about mid-night and no sooner did he come out of his house than was he overpowered by 4 dacoits. Fifteen or sixteen persons thereafter entered Jwala Prasad s house and looted his property. The neighbours of Jwala Prasad went to his house on hearing the commotion and one of them set fire to a heap of dry straw so as to facilitate identification of the dacoits. The First Information Report was lodged by Jwala Prasad at the Kharighat police station at a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
