Conviction under Sections 395 and 397 IPC Overturned Due to Insufficient Evidence and Legal Misinterpretations
In a significant judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court, the conviction of Ramphal and Dhuram under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been overturned. The appellants were initially sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 395 IPC for dacoity, and Ramphal was further sentenced to three years under Section 397 IPC for an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while committing dacoity. However, Justice Avnish Saxena, presiding over Criminal Appeal No.1458 of 1984, ruled that the conviction could not be sustained due to legal and evidentiary shortcomings.
The case originated from an incident on January 19, 1975, where a group of nine individuals were allegedly involved in extorting passersby near Pearghata, Jhansi. Two accused, Ramphal and Dhuram, were apprehended at the scene, while others managed to escape. The trial court's judgment convicted the two under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, despite the legal requirement that dacoity involves five or more persons, as outlined in Section 391 IPC.
The appellate court scrutinized the evidence presented during the trial and found several inconsistencies. The identification parade, pivotal for establishing the accused's involvement, was deemed inadequate due to lack of specificity in the recovered items and absence of key witnesses. The prosecution failed to examine two star witnesses, Lakhan Singh and Baldev Prasad Khare, who were allegedly victims of the dacoity. Moreover, the judgment highlighted the absence of gunshot injuries despite claims of cross-firing between the police and accused, further weakening the prosecution's case.
Justice Saxena emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory definitions, noting that less than five individuals cannot be convicted for dacoity under Section 395 IPC. The appellate court also questioned the conviction under Section 397 IPC, given Ramphal's acquittal under the Arms Act, which indicated a lack of evidence regarding possession of a deadly weapon.
The court referenced precedents such as "Ram Lakhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh" and "Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh" to justify setting aside the convictions. It underscored that an appellate court must intervene when the trial court's judgment fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The appeal has been allowed, with the judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1977 being set aside. Ramphal and Dhuram have been acquitted, and their bail bonds discharged. The court instructed the disposal of material exhibits as per legal procedures and ordered the record to be remitted back.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 395 IPC for dacoity requires the presence of at least five persons involved in the act; conviction of less than five individuals for dacoity cannot sustain in light of legal requirements. Conviction under Section 397 IPC for attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while committing dacoity requires proper and consistent evidence of possession and use of a deadly weapon, which was lacking in this case.
Statutory provision(s): Section 395 IPC, Section 397 IPC, Section 391 IPC, Section 390 IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, Section 374 CrPC, Section 313 CrPC.
Ramphal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2848293
