Insufficient evidence and procedural lapses can lead to the overturning of convictions for serious offenses, highlighting the necessity for rigorous proof in criminal trials.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, D.K. in SC No.75/2011 dated 16.10.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Circle Inspector of Police, Belthangady Circle submitted the charge- sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code .

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that, on 24.01.2011 at 05.30 a.m. on Ujire-Charamudi Public Highway, all the accused have committed dacoity on CW1 and CW2, who were proceeding on a motorcycle by assaulting them with iron rod and hands. They have robbed one gold chain, one wallet, cash of Rs.10,000/-, two mobile phones, election identity card, ATM card from the possession of CW1. Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code .

5. The accused were released on bail. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.332/2011 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady. Thereafter, case was submitted to the Court of Sessions and case was registered in SC No. 75/2011.

6. On hearing the charges, the trial Court has framed the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code . Same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused No. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused No.5 is absconding.

7. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11. 18 documents were marked as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P18. No material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, trial Court has convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. Being aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

9. Learned counsel Sri.Suyog Herale for the appellant, would submit that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court is highly illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary. The evidence placed on record suffers from contradictions, improvements and omissions from the evidence placed on record, it is clear that there is no nexus between the appellants and the crime. The prosecution has utterly failed to connect the appellants to the alleged crime. The identification of the accused has not been done as required under law. In order to prove the offence under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code , the prosecution is required to demonstrate before the Court conjoint action of 5 or more persons in removing and carrying the valuables of an individual and identify the said persons before the Court as the persons who carried the valuables of the victim and committed the offence of dacoity. PW2 is the friend of the complainant who has seen only 3 persons and he has deposed that two persons were sitting in the car whereas complainant has deposed that 5 persons were standing. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, who were the victims, do not corroborate each other. According to