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

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Raghuveer - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1274 of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Devendra Kumar for Mr. Pranay Jhala, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP, for the Respondent

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. Mere assembly of five or more persons armed with weapons is not sufficient to establish the offence of dacoity.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 399, 402 IPC - ARMS ACT - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 106 - ASSEMBLY FOR COMMITTING DACOITY - INTENTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - SECTION 437-A CR.P.C. - SECTION 103 EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 3/25, 4/25 ARMS ACT - SECTION 399, 402 IPC - ARMS ACT - EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 106 - ASSEMBLY FOR COMMITTING DACOITY - INTENTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - INDEPENDENT WITNESS - SECTION 437-A CR.P.C. - SECTION 103 EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 3/25, 4/25 ARMS ACT

Fact of the Case:

Five accused were convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were planning to commit dacoity and were apprehended by the police. The accused denied the charges and claimed they were falsely implicated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found major contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the receipt of secret information, the manner in which it was received, and the failure to associate independent witnesses. The court also found it improbable that the accused would blurt out their planning when the police party reached the spot.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity? 2. Whether the non-examination of independent witnesses affected the reliability of the prosecution case? 3. Whether the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity. The court relied on case law holding that mere assembly of five or more persons armed with weapons is not sufficient to establish the offence of dacoity unless the prosecution proves the purpose of the assembly. 2. The court held that the non-examination of independent witnesses affected the reliability of the prosecution case. The court noted that the prosecution had not provided any explanation for the failure to join independent witnesses, despite the availability of such witnesses. 3. The court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court found that the contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the failure to examine independent witnesses, and the improbabilities in the prosecution's story raised doubts about the guilt of the accused.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted them of the charges.

JUDGMENT

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Raghuveer @ Bichchhuda son of Ram Narayan Kanjar, Radhey Shyam @ Kabra and Vikram @ Vikara both sons of Lakhma, Bala son of Kanwariya @ Kanwar Lal Kanjar and Roopchand @ Dadiya son of Ram Lal were tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 206/2016. The trial Judge vide impugned judgment dated 1.7.2017 held the appellants guilty of offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. Raghuveer @ Bichchhuda was also convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, whereas remaining four accused were convicted for offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

2. Having convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the accused as under:-

    U/s. 399 IPC- to undergo seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof to undergo additional three months SI each.

    U/s. 402 IPC- to undergo five years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof to undergo additional three months SI.

    Raghuveer @ Bichchhuda:

    U/s. 3/25 Arms Act to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof to undergo additional three months SI.

    Radhey Shyam @ Kabra, Vikram @ Vikara, Bala @ Kanwar Lal and Roopchand @ Dadiya:

    U/s. 4/25 Arms Act to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default thereof to undergo additional three months SI.

    All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

    3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal to question their conviction and sentence.

    4. The case of the prosecution can be summed up from the charges framed against the accused/appellants.

    5. The first charge stated that on 9.10.2016 at 12:40 AM, near bridge of Khakhodiya Khal, Police Station Sadar, Jhalawar, Raghuveer @ Bichchhuda armed with one loaded iron country made pistol and two live cartridges, Radhey Shyam @ Kabara armed with one incised sword, Vikram @ Vikara armed with one incised Knife, Bala armed with one incised knife and Roopchand @ Dadiya armed with one incised sword were planning to commit dacoity on Royalty Naka situated at Jhalrapatan - Bhawani Mandi Highway, when they were apprehended by Manoj Singh (P.W.2), SHO Police Station Sadar, Jhalawar. Thus, they committed offence punishable under Section 399 IPC.

    6. The second charge stated that on the said date and time, all the above-mentioned five accused armed with weapons gathered to commit dacoity and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 402 IPC.

    7. The third charge under the Arms Act was also framed against the accused. Raghuveer @ Bichchhuda who was armed with fire arm was charged for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, whereas, remaining four accused namely Radhey Shyam @ Kabra, Vikram @ Vikara, Bala and Roopchand @ Dadiya were charged for the offence under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

    8. The prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, in all examined eight witnesses namely Armor Yashwant Singh (P.W.1), SHO/investiging officer Manoj Singh (P.W.2), ASI Abdul Latif (P.W.3), Constable Ramswaroop (P.W.4), Head Constable Shambhu Lal (P.W.5), LDC Mohan Lal Shekhawatiya (P.W.6), Constable Dilip Kumar (P.W.7) and Head Constable Madan Lal (P.W.8).

    9. The prime witness of the prosecution is Manoj Singh (P.W.2), who at the relevant time was posted as SHO, Police Station Sadar, Jhalawar. This witness in the court deposed that on 9.10.2016 at about 12:10 AM he along with companion police officials namely Shambhu Lal (P.W.5), Ashok (not examined), Ramswaroop (P.W.4), Sandeep (not examined), Dilip (P.W.7), Maninder (not examined) proceeded on a patrol duty in government jeep from police station. At 12:40 AM when they reached village Bhilwara, special informant met and relayed him information that at Kanwada Road, below Khakhodiya Khal on culvert, some anti social elements of Kanjar community have gathered and they are hatching a planning to com

      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