IMPORTANT POINT
Law does not give unlimited power to police to apprehend any person without following process of law – Police is required to prove that his action was fair, independent and without bias, and was in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT (COMMON)

Gita Gopi, J.—Criminal Appeal no.412 of 2005 was filed by the appellants – original accused nos.1, 2 and 3, while Criminal Appeal no.715 of 2005 was filed by the appellant– original accused no.4 and Criminal Appeal no. 1139 of 2005 had been filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case no.51 of 2004 has been impugned. The accused persons were charged under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short), Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

1.1 The accused nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC. The accused nos.1 to 3 were further sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, and also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The sentences for each accused were ordered to run concurrently.

1.2 The accused no.4 was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC, and in failure to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. Facts, in nut-shell, are that on 02.06.2003, FIR no. I-7/2003 came to be registered with District Crime Branch at Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the District Crime Branch had received information that the named accused persons will assemble opposite to Natraj Hotel, Naroda Patiya three cross roads between 06:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. on 02.06.2003. As per the information, they were to meet there to hatch conspiracy to commit dacoity. 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that at about 08:45 p.m. on 02.06.2003, three persons got down from an auto rickshaw, other two persons came from the other side walking and all assembled on the main road opposite to Natraj Hotel at Naroda Patiya. As soon as the accused persons assembled, the District Crime Branch apprehended them alleging that the accused were armed with weapons and hence, were preparing to commit dacoity.

2.2 The police arrested them under the accusation that they were preparing to commit offence of dacoity at Sahid Vir Petrol Pump at Dehgam. According to the prosecution, the accused were arrested from the open main road going to Dehgam, where from the said petrol pump was about 28 kms. away.

2.3 The charge-sheet was filed. As the offences in the charge-sheet were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court by an order dated 11.09.2003 and the same was registered as Sessions Case no.51 of 2004. Thereafter, the charge was framed on 30.06.2004. The accused not having pleaded guilty, the case was opened by the prosecution.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot with learned advocates Ms. Smriti Chauhan and Mr. K.I. Kazi for the accused and Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP for the State.

4. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused has submitted that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies and the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence so as to sustain the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Barot submitted that not a single penny was recovered from the present appellant as accused, nor the accused were apprehended from any private vehicle while moving towards the direction of the said petrol pump t