Lack of Evidence for Assembly of Five Persons Leads to Acquittal in Ahmedabad Dacoity Case
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted Arvindsingh Gangasingh Solanki and others in a case of alleged preparation for dacoity, citing insufficient evidence to prove the assembly of five or more persons as required under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, which was initially decided by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad City, had sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment based on charges under multiple sections including the IPC, Arms Act, and the Bombay Police Act. The High Court, however, found the prosecution's evidence inadequate to sustain the conviction.
The case stemmed from an incident on June 2, 2003, when the District Crime Branch of Ahmedabad, acting on secret information, apprehended four individuals near Natraj Hotel, Naroda Patiya. The accused were alleged to have been preparing to commit dacoity at a petrol pump with the involvement of a fifth person named 'Munno', who reportedly escaped during the police operation. The prosecution's case hinged on the presence of this fifth person to fulfill the requirements for a charge under Section 399 IPC, which mandates the involvement of at least five individuals.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Gita Gopi, highlighted several inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case. Notably, the court observed that the identity of the fifth accused, 'Munno', remained unverified and that no supplementary charge-sheet or separate trial proceedings had been initiated for him. Furthermore, the court criticized the lack of corroborative evidence, such as a properly maintained police diary entry detailing the secret information received, and the absence of independent witnesses during the raid.
Justice Gopi emphasized that the mere recovery of weapons from the accused does not suffice to prove preparation for dacoity, especially when the assembly of five or more persons was not conclusively established. The court also noted procedural deficiencies in the conduct of the raid, including the failure to provide seizure receipts and the lack of verification of the secret informant's claims.
The High Court's ruling aligns with precedents set by other high courts and the Supreme Court, which underscore the necessity of proving the assembly of five or more persons for charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. In her judgment, Justice Gopi referenced several cases where similar charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of such assembly.
The acquittal of the accused in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the requirement for clear, corroborative evidence in criminal prosecutions. The judgment not only overturns the convictions but also highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against inadequately substantiated charges.
Bottom line:-
The prosecution must prove the involvement of at least five persons for a conviction under Section 399 of IPC, as the section mandates the preparation for dacoity to be made conjointly by five or more persons. Mere recovery of weapons or assembly of fewer than five persons is insufficient to establish the offence.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 399, Indian Penal Code Section 391, Indian Evidence Act Section 125, Arms Act Section 25(1B)(a), Criminal Procedure Code Section 51
Arvindsingh Gangasingh Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879987
