HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AVNISH SAXENA
Ramphal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sri Kamta Prasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by two appellants, namely, Ramphal s/o Sukh Ram and Dhuram s/o Baij Nath, under Section 374 CrPC, as they have been found guilty for offence under Section 395 IPC for which both the accused were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. The accused-appellant Ramphal is further found guilty for offence under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. For the accused Ramphal, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. This conviction and sentence has been recorded by the trial court (Special Sessions Judge, Jhansi) by judgment and sentence dated 24.04.1984 in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1977 (State Vs. Hindupat and others), arose out of Case Crime No.10 of 1975 and Case Crime No.11 of 1975 for offences under Sections 395, 397, 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, respectively, Police Station Garotha, District Jhansi.
3. The prosecution case is such that a police party consisting HC Jayatram A.P., C.A.P. Nathuram, C.A.P.
Ram Lakhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi
Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
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....
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.
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....
1. The term ‘offender’ under Section 397 IPC is confined to the ‘offender’ who uses any deadly weapon and use of deadly weapon by one offender at the time of committing robbery cannot attract Section....
Point of law: Court are conscious of the legal position that being part of a gang of dacoits, while the act of dacoity is on, is sufficient to make a member of that bunch of dacoits, present there, l....
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 court ruled that the failure of prosecution to corroborate witness testimonies and resolve inconsistencies led to the acquittal of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.