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

2026 Supreme(All) 86

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA, J.
Ali Hasan and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 1983
Decided On : 16-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Brij Raj, Narendra Kumar, Sanjive Kumar Gupta, Tejram

The appellate court found the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to material inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the alleged dacoity.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395 and 397 - Conviction for dacoity and attempt to cause death or grievous hurt - Appellants acquitted due to lack of evidence supporting prosecution's claims, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and failure to establish the occurrence of dacoity. (Paras 12, 28-30)

(B) Criminal Appeals - The appellate court's role in examining the evidence de novo and ensuring the lower court's findings are substantiated - Conviction cannot be upheld when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:
The criminal appeal arises from a conviction for dacoity against seven accused-appellants who were identified by the informant and other witnesses during a nighttime incident where valuables were allegedly stolen. The appellants argued that witness testimonies were inconsistent and lacked reliability.

Findings of Court:
The court found material inconsistencies in the testimonies and insufficient evidence to affirm the trial court's conviction.

Issues: The primary issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, identification of the accused, and whether a dacoity took place as alleged.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trial court erred in failing to consider serious inconsistencies in witness accounts and failed to prove the occurrence of the alleged dacoity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction set aside and appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the dacoity incident. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. defense arguments regarding false implication and inconsistencies. (Para 11 , 12)
3. prosecution's reliance on witness testimony for conviction. (Para 13 , 19)
4. court observations on evidence evaluation. (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
5. principle on benefit of doubt leading to acquittal. (Para 28)
6. final order of acquittal and remittal of record. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

AVNISH SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Sri Brij Raj and Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Chandra Badan, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. The oldest criminal appeal has been preferred by seven accused- appellants in the year 1983 under Section 374(2) CrPC from District Badaun, on being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Badaun on 29.08.1983 in Special Sessions Trial No.157 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No.321 reported on 27.07.1982 at 6:30 a.m. at Police Station Ujhani, District Badaun for offence under Section 395 (punishment for dacoity) and 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), whereby the trial court has convicted accused-appellants 1 to 3, Ali Hasan, Narain and Nandey, respectively for offence under Section 395 I.P.C. and accused-appellants 4 to 7 Omkar, Harpal, Latoori, Mehndi, respectively for offence under Sections 395 I.P.C. read with Section 397 I.P.C. Therefore, appellants Omkar, Harpal, Latoori and Mehndi were punished for imprisonment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, whereas accused Ali Hasan, Narain and Nandey were punished with 5 years rigorous imprisonment.

3. During the pendency of appeal, four appellants, Narain s/o Gindu, Nandey s/o Jhammn, Omkar s/o Dhoom Singh and Mehndi s/o Chunni have passed away and by order dated 21.02.2019, the appeal was abated for appellant no.2, Narain, appellant no.3 Nande, appellant no.4 Omkar and appellant no.7 Mehndi.

4. The prosecution case has its genesis from the written information given by Dhanpal (P.W.-1), scribed by Jagdish s/o Bhole Nath disclosing therein that in the intervening night of 26/27.07.1982 at about 1:00 a.m. while he and his brother, Ishwari, were sleeping in the cattle shed near the house, they heard the shrieks of his mother and sisters. His brother Ishwari and he ran towards the house accompanied by Nanhey Singh, Ram Lal, Prakash and other villagers with lighted torch in their hands and found that the miscreants were beating their mother and sisters and looting the valuables. The informant and other villagers including his brother have challenged the miscreants, on which, the miscreants came out from the house, who have been identified in the light of torch.

Mehndi was carrying gun, Harpal, Omkar and Latoori had country-made pistols and other accused were carrying lathi in their hands. While exiting the accused made two fires and threatened the informant and other villagers, not to chase them. In exchange Ganga Ram has also shot three fires from his licensed gun. The accused then sprinted away towards South. In the dacoity, the mother and sisters of informant were badly injured. It is further revealed from the F.I.R. that the informant was having cash of Rs 6,000/- at his residence. Rs.3,000/- was the proceeds from onion sale and Rs.3,000/- was the advance money for selling his land. The accused had looted Rs.3,000/-, but could not found other Rs.3,000/-, which was kept hidden. The accused have also looted nine items. One Hasali of silver (2.450 gm); one Hasli silver (2.400 gm); one phool for nose; one pair bara silver; 16 pair of lachche silver for toes; one pair pahunchi of silver; one shirt taricoat yellow colour with lines; one Tehmad of Khadi white colour 2.25 meters; and one Baniyan with sleeves of white colour. The F.I.R. further reveals that the accused had left at the place of incident one lathi, one aguncha, one pair of shoes, one cheni and one summi. The informant was accompa

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