Preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC requires a minimum of five participants, and inadequacy of evidence leads to acquittal.

ORDER :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

This revision petition is filed by the accused challenging the judgment in Crl.A No.697/2006 of Sessions Court, Thrissur, by which it confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence against him in S.C.No.71/2004 of Assistant Sessions Court, Irinjalakkuda for the offence punishable under Section 399 Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Prosecution case is that on 1.12.2002 at around 10 pm, while the Circle Inspector of Police, Puthukkad, along with his police team were on patrolling duty, accused herein along with two other accused named in the final report were found travelling in a car bearing registration No.KL7C-459 carrying deadly weapons and they were making preparation for committing dacoity.

3. The crime was initially registered under Section 41 (1)(a)(d) and Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 27 of the Arms Act , 1959. After investigation, the investigating officer filed final report against three accused for the offence punishable under Section 399 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. Revision petitioner herein is A1 in the final report and he faced trial before the Assistant Sessions Court, Irijalakkuda in S.C.No.71/2004.

5. To substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts.P1 to P9 and identified MO1 to MO8 series material objects. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6. After trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the revision petitioner/A1 guilty of the offence under Section 399 IPC and he was sentenced thereunder. He was found not guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and was acquitted of the said offence. The appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/A1 as Crl.A No.697/2006 was dismissed by the Sessions Court by confirming the conviction and sentence against him for the offence under Section 399 IPC.

7. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/1st accused has preferred this revision petition, contending inter alia that none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 399 IPC have been made out by the prosecution; that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had done any preparation for committing dacoity as alleged. It was further contended that there is inordinate delay in filing Ext.P7 report which would show the falsity of the prosecution case.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that A1 along with two other accused named in the final report were preparing for committing dacoity and therefore there are no reasons to unsettle the finding entered by the trial court and the appellate court.

9. PW6, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Puthukkad, testified that on 1.12.2002, at around 10 pm, while he, along with his team, was on patrolling duty and was conducting vehicle checking at Vellikulangara Junction, an ambassador car bearing registration No.KL-7C-459 was seen coming through Kuttichira-Kodakara Road; that though he shown hand signal to stop the vehicle, the car did not stop there. Accordingly, the police team chased the said car and intercepted the said vehicle. His further version is that A1 to A3 were seen inside the car. On inspection of the said car, four knives, two iron rods, one idikatta, four gloves, one helmet, one monkey cap and two stickers with No.KL8-632 were seen in the dicky of the car. All the three accused found inside the car were arrested. Ext.P8 is the arrest memo. Crime 228/2002 of Vellikulangara Police Station was registered under Section 41 (1)(a)(d), 102 of Cr.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act . MO1 to MO8 series are the weapons and other articles seized from the v