Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Arvindsingh Gangasingh Solanki & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2005
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Pratik Barot with Ms Smriti K Chauhan
For the Respondent: Ms Jyoti Bhatt, APP

Conviction for preparation to commit dacoity requires firm proof of assembly by five or more persons and evidence of active preparation. Failure to record intelligence inputs, reliance on interested police witnesses, and inability to prove the involvement of the requisite number of persons creates critical reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 399; Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1); Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 and 125. - Prosecution for preparation to commit dacoity requires proof of assembly of five or more persons; mere possession of weapons or presence at a public spot is insufficient without evidence proving active preparation for the specific offence. - Disclosure of secret information to the raiding party does not grant immunity from procedural requirements; failure to record information in the station diary and lack of impartial corroboration renders the investigation unreliable. - Statements and confessions made before police officers in custody are inadmissible unless they result in the distinct discovery of relevant facts. (Paras 12, 13, 27, 86, 87)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for conspiracy and making preparations for dacoity. Prosecution alleged that based on received secret intelligence, a raiding party apprehended the accused at a public location while they were allegedly armed. The accused challenged the conviction, arguing that the investigation suffered from lack of independent witnesses, failure to prove the presence of the required number of participants for the alleged offence, and lack of transparency in recording intelligence inputs.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the raiding party failed to record the intelligence in official station records and that the investigation was conducted by a member who was an interested party in the raiding team, compromising impartiality. The court found that the evidence failed to prove the active involvement or the specific existence of the alleged fifth participant essential for the charge of dacoity.

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the assembly of five or more persons for the purpose of dacoity and whether the evidence collected regarding the preparation was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction under the charge of preparing to commit dacoity necessitates proving that five or more persons had specific intent and had taken active steps to prepare for said offence. In the absence of corroborative independent evidence and due to inherent contradictions and inadmissible confessions, the foundational burden of proof was not met.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. summary of case facts, charges under ipc 399, and initial trial court findings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. competing arguments regarding prosecutorial inconsistencies and potential enhancement of sentence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. critical assessment of investigation procedures, informant reliability, and police duty to maintain record-keeping. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
4. requirement to prove the assembly of five or more people conjointly to constitute the offense of dacoity under section 399 ipc. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 94)
5. acquittal of accused due to lack of evidence proving essential ingredients of dacoity. (Para 95)

ORDER :

Gita Gopi, J.

1. Criminal Appeal no.412 of 2005 was filed by the appellants – original accused nos.1, 2 and 3, while Criminal Appeal no.715 of 2005 was filed by the appellant – original accused no.4 and Criminal Appeal no. 1139 of 2005 had been filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case no.51 of 2004 has been impugned. The accused persons were charged under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for short), Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

1.1 The accused nos.1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC. The accused nos.1 to 3 were further sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, and also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. The sentences for each accused were ordered to run concurrently.

1.2 The accused no.4 was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC, and in failure to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months.

2. Facts, in nut-shell, are that on 02.06.2003, FIR no. I 7/2003 came to be registered with District Crime Branch at Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 399 of the IPC, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the District Crime Branch had received information that the named accused persons will assemble opposite to Natraj Hotel, Naroda Patiya three cross roads between 06:00 p.m. to 09:00 p.m. on 02.06.2003. As per the information, they were to meet there to hatch conspiracy to commit dacoity.

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that at about 08:45 p.m. on 02.06.2003, three persons got down from an auto rickshaw, other two persons came from the other side walking and all assembled on the main road opposite to Natraj Hotel at Naroda Patiya. As soon as the accused persons assembled, the District Crime Branch apprehended them alleging that the accused were armed with weapons and hence, were preparing to commit dacoity.

2.2 The police arrested them under the accusation that they were preparing to commit offence of dacoity at Sahid Vir Petrol Pump at Dehgam. According to the prosecution, the accused were arrested from the open main road going to Dehgam, where from the said petrol pump was about 28 kms. away.

2.3 The charge-sheet was filed. As the offences in the charge-sheet were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADGita Gopi, J.Arvindsingh Gangasingh Solanki & Ors. – AppellantsVersusThe State Of Gujarat – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 412 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2005Decided On : 06-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Arvindsingh Gangasingh Solanki & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2005, R/Criminal Appeal No. 1139 of 2005
Decided On : 06-04-2026