The main legal point established in the judgment is that the involvement of at least five persons in a dacoity is not necessary for conviction under Section 395 IPC, and the conviction of less than five persons for dacoity can be justified based on the evidence and circumstances of the case.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellants are seeking setting aside of the judgment dated 25.02.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.04.1998 at about 2.00 PM, complainant Smt.Shahnaz Mansoor (PW3) and her husband Mansoor Zamal (PW5) returned to their house bearing No.6514, Sher Ka Pinjare, Kasab Pura, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, after visiting the clinic of Dr. Roshan Lal. Her husband went away to attend his routine work. The complainant and appellant No.1 Allaudin, who was working as servant, were present in the house when at about 2.30 PM, door bell of the house rang which was answered by appellant Allaudin and then four young persons entered the house forcibly. One of the intruders pushed Allaudin in the toilet at the point of revolver. Another person stood at the gate and two other persons entered in the room. One of them put the chhuri (knife) on the stomach of the complainant asked for the key of the chest (Tijori) or else they would kill her. While demanding the key, one of them dragged the complainant in the bathroom. In the meanwhile, one of the intruders traced the key of the chest. The complainant confined herself in the bathroom. All the intruders robbed the valuable goods from the house. Thereafter, at about 3.20 PM, Munna Hashmat, one known person came there, complainant and appellant Allaudin raised alarm from inside and then only they could come out from the bathroom and toilet respectively.

3. Thereafter, the police was informed. Inspector Ram Chander Meena (PW9) went to the spot, got recorded the statement of the complainant Ex.PW3/A, made endorsement Ex.PW9/A and got the case registered vide FIR Ex.PW6/A. The list of stolen goods was supplied later on. During investigation, all the appellants including two co-accused, namely, Akhtar and Sikki, were arrested on 22.04.1998 and the stolen goods were recovered at their instance. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges under Sections 391/395/412 IPC were framed against all the appellants including the aforesaid two co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses.

5. PW1, Badru Islam is the brother of complainant Smt. Shehnaz Mansoor (PW3), at whose shop appellant Mahmood was working. He deposed that appellant Allaudin was working as domestic help in the house of his sister. PW1 joined the investigation with police on 22.04.1998, when appellant Allaudin made the disclosure statement Ex.PW1/A, led the police party to his house and got recovered the stolen goods, i.e., one bracelet and one silver coin whereupon words “Mohd. Asif Weds Zakira” were inscribed. The same were sealed with seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B.

6. In pursuance of disclosure statement Ex.PW1/A of appellant No.1 Allaudin, appellant No.2 Mahmood, co-accused in the dacoity in question, was also apprehended from near the shop of PW1. The disclosure statement Ex.PW1/C of appellant No.2 Mahmood was recorded. Pursuant thereto, he got recovered the stolen goods, i.e., one gold necklace, golden earrings (Bundas) and one ring, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D after sealing with seal of ‘RC’. Thereafter, appellant No.3 Shiv Kumar was arrested from Gandhi Nagar at the instance of appellant No.2 Mahmood. Disclosure statement Ex.PW1/E of appellant Shiv Kumar was recorded and he got recovered four stolen goods from his house, i.e., one watch, one camera, one silver coin and one knife. These articles were sealed with seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/F. Thereafter, appellant Mahmood led the police party to the house of accused Akhtar, who was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/G was recorded. Pursuant thereto, he got recovered one watch, one ear tops and one ring, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW1/H after sealing with seal of RC. After that, accused Sikki was also apprehended from his house, w