SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 41

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Ram Lakhan, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1976, D/- 2-2-1983.
Ram Lakhan, Appellant v. State of U. P. Respondent.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. V. J. Francis and Nikhil Chandra, Advocate for appellant; Mr. H. M. Singh, Ranbir Singh and Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent.

Advocates:
DALVIR BHANDARI, H.M.SINGH, NIKHIL CHANDRA, R.K.GARG, Ranbir Yadav, V.J.Francis

Headnote:Indian Penal Code–Section 395–Out of the nine accused named in the F.I.R five acquitted by the Trial Court three acquitted by the High Court–Appellant alone cannot be convicted for dacoity.

       (Para 20)

JUDGMENT:- In this appeal the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. In our opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point. It appears from the FIR that only 9 persons viz. 1. Ramroop Kurmi, 2. Ramdhoop Kurmi, 3. Rambodh Kurmi, 4. Ram Noker Kurmi, 5. Sampuran Kurmi, 6. Rambachan Kurmi, 7. Ram Lakhan Kurmi, 8. Ram Ujagir Kurmi and 9. Ram Pyare Kurmi have participated in the dacoity which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other property were looted away. The trial Court had acquitted 5 persons and convicted 4. But on appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted Ram Lakhan the present appellant. The position now is that out of 9 persons named in the FIR who are alleged to have participated in the dacoity Ram Lakhan is alone left. Before an offence under Section 395 can be made out there must be an assembly of 5 or more persons. On the findings of the Courts below it is manifest that only one person is now left. In these circumstances therefore the appellant cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 395. The High Court has not found that Ram Lakhan was guilty of any overt act so as to bring his case within any other minor offence. For these reasons therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of offence charged under Section 395. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.

Appeal allowed.

For Citation : AIR 1983 SC 352(1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top