Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Rajen Ghosh son of late Kunu Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
Heard learned counsel for appellants Mr. Gautam Kumar as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashishta.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.08.2006 and 01.09.2006 of the appellants for the offence under Section 395 of the I.P.C. passed by Additional Sessions Judge-Ist Class, Rajmahal in S.T. Case No. 38 of 1993 whereby and where under the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 05.01.1982 in the night while informant (Nirajan Kumar Rai P.W.6) was sleeping in his house and the door was not locked from inside. He heard some sound meanwhile two miscreants entered into his house having pistol in their hands and pointed towards the informant and started demanding money and other valuable articles. It is further alleged that the miscreants also broken the box after tying the hands of the informant. Thereafter, two more miscreants entered into the house and assaulted the informant. Subsequently,
A conviction under Section 395 of the IPC requires proof of the participation of five or more persons in the commission of dacoity; without such evidence, the conviction cannot stand.
The judgment emphasized the importance of proving the possession of stolen property by the accused and the need to examine the investigating officer to establish the occurrence and recovery of looted....
The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and corroborating evidence is essential. Non-examination of key witnesses, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies in the evidence ca....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for conviction under Section 395 IPC, the involvement of five or more persons is necessary, as per the definition of dacoity in Section 391....
Conviction under Section 395 IPC requires involvement of five or more persons; prosecution's failure to prove guilt leads to acquittal when reasonable doubt exists.
Conviction for dacoity under Section 395 IPC cannot stand if fewer than five persons are charged, highlighting the importance of substantive evidence and adherence to legal definitions.
Point of Law : Conviction for an offence of dacoity less than five persons is not sustainable. It was also held that before an offence under Section 395 of the IPC can be made out, there must be an a....
Dacoity – Long delay in holding Judgment of conviction.
For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
