Back
After 20 Years in Legal Limbo, Frees Four Men in Botched Dacoity Plot Case
In a scathing rebuke to a prosecution riddled with gaps, the has acquitted four men convicted two decades ago for allegedly preparing to commit dacoity. Justice Gita Gopi, in a detailed 91-page judgment dated , dismantled the trial court's findings, emphasizing the state's failure to prove a core element: involvement of five or more persons as required under . This ruling in highlights procedural pitfalls in police raids and the unyielding .
The Midnight Raid at Natraj Hotel: Origins of the Case
The saga began on , when received a tip-off about five named individuals—Arvindsingh @ Rinku Solanki (A1), Shyamvirsingh (A2), Gitesh Pratapsinh (A3), Dipendrasinh Tejsinh (A4), and the elusive "Munno"—planning a dacoity at a petrol pump near Dehgam, 28 km away. Acting on this, Police Inspector Tarunkumar Barot led a 12-member team, including an informant, to Natraj Hotel at Naroda Patiya around .
Three men allegedly alighted from an auto-rickshaw, joined by two walkers, assembling opposite the hotel. Police swooped in; four were nabbed with country-made pistols, cartridges, and a knife, but "Munno" fled into the crowd. FIR I-7/2003 followed under Sections 399 IPC (), , and . The convicted them in 2005, sentencing A1-A3 to four years RI and A4 to two years, with concurrent terms. Appeals ensued: two by accused (CRLA 412/2005, 715/2005) and one by the state seeking harsher punishment (1139/2005).
Defense Dismantles the Prosecution's House of Cards
Advocates , , and hammered inconsistencies: no cash recovered despite auto travel; vague timelines (raid at , panchnama delays); contradictory witness accounts on arrivals and "Munno's" escape; one panch turning hostile, the other unexamined; unrecorded secret information sans "Janva Jog" entry or superior notification; no personal searches of police before accused; absent seizure memos or ballistic reports. Critically, only four arrested—failing Section 399's five-person threshold—while "Munno" remained a phantom, uninvestigated despite remand. Citing precedents like , they argued mere arms possession doesn't prove dacoity prep.
The state, via , urged upholding conviction, deeming sentences lenient given armed conspiracy's gravity. Enhancement under was sought, stressing deterrence over lack of priors, and concurrent sentences as erroneous.
Court Scrutinizes: Phantom Fifth Man and Procedural Black Holes
Justice Gopi meticulously dissected the evidence, invoking
's
"
"
mandate for dacoity-related offenses. Panchas contradicted police: PW1 saw four from a rickshaw; PW3 only two. No overheard conspiracy talks; Natraj Hotel—a bustling spot amid travel offices—was implausible for plotting. Unrecorded info violated
; informant (unexamined) accompanied the raid, waiving
privilege yet unverified for bias.
Precedents fortified reversal: (: mere assembly at conspicuous place insufficient); (no resistance, no independents = doubt); (arms alone don't prove intent). Arms convictions faltered too—procedural lapses tainted recoveries. The trial court erred framing issues sans five-person proof.
"The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the presence of five or more persons to have made preparation for the commission of dacoity."
"Mere recovery of the weapons from the accused would not suffice to prove that they had gathered to make plan and ."
"In absence of proving presence of five, no case under Section 399 of the IPC could be believed."
Acquittal: A Win for Reasonable Doubt, Blow to Shoddy Probes
The appeals by accused were allowed; state's dismissed. Convictions quashed, accused acquitted across charges, bail bonds discharged. This echoes media reports of a "20-year ordeal," underscoring how evidentiary voids doom cases. Future raids demand airtight procedures—recorded tips, verified informants, robust panch testimony—or risk acquittals. It reinforces: doubt benefits the accused, especially in shadowy "prep-to-dacoity" traps.
For police and prosecutors, a cautionary blueprint; for the acquitted diamond cutters, long-delayed vindication.
