The court ruled that the failure of prosecution to corroborate witness testimonies and resolve inconsistencies led to the acquittal of the accused.

ORAL JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2013 passed in S.C.No.817/2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that PW3 has received the credible information that these two accused along with other accused persons making the preparation to commit dacoity. On the said information, they went to the spot and observed that some persons are making preparation and hence, raid was conducted on 01.07.2011 at 9.30 p.m. near Neelagiri plantation compound, Kenadiyan school road, Yelahanka, Bengaluru also charges leveled against the accused persons that all of them belongs to a gang of persons assembled for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity and four accused were apprehended at the spot and one person ran away from the spot and thereafter, the person who ran away from the spot has been arrayed as accused No.5. Accused No.2 was on bail and he was arrested on 01.07.2011 and released on 21.07.2011. Accused No.1 also granted bail and subsequently, he was taken to the custody on 01.08.2011 under body warrant and still, he is in judicial custody.

4. The Trial Court considered the plea of the accused persons and they claim for trial. The prosecution examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P.P1 to P4 and also got marked the material objects as MO1 to MO3. PW1 is an independent panch witness and other witnesses PW2 to PW4 are the raiding parties. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the accused persons were making preparation of committing the dacoity and also they are the habitual offenders and hence, convicted and sentenced for a period of four years for both the offences with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for accused No.2 would vehemently contend that according to the prosecution, the incident was taken place on 01.07.2011 at about 9.30 p.m. PW3 who has received the credible information of preparing to commit the offence of dacoity, went along with PW1 and PW2 to the spot and found that some persons were sitting behind the compound. Hence, immediately he sent PW1 along with one of his staff and both of them went and confirmed that the accused are talking about committing dacoity and immediately, conducted the raid and apprehended four accused persons at the spot and one accused ran away from the spot. The counsel would vehemently contend that when the information was received about committing of dacoity, even did not make any entry in the Station House Diary but proceeded to the spot and conducted the raid. The counsel also would vehemently contend that PW3 who received the credible information is the complainant as well as the investigator. Though part of the investigation was done by PW4 who registered the case and conducted the investigation, but again PW3 only investigated the mater and filed the charge-sheet.

6. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the Ex.P1 - spot mahazar wherein it is stated that knives are seized when the same was hiding with their waist and pocket. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that PW1 categorically deposed that they found the accused persons along with knife with their hands. Hence, there are material contradictions with regard to the possession of knife. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the very preparation of committing offence of dacoity is doubtful since there are material contradictions. Even th