Nothing To Establish That Dacoity Was First Intention & Murder Was Committed In Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S.396 IPC
|The Allahabad High Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment convicting the accused-appellants under Section 396 IPC.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code after noting that the prosecution had failed to establish that dacoity was the first intention and in committing dacoity, murder was committed.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the CrPC by the appellants against the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for an offence under Section 396 IPC for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal held, “Thus the prosecution has failed to establish that dacoity was the first intention and in committing dacoity murder was committed. The conviction thus as recorded under Section 396 I.P.C. fails.”
Advocate A.B.L. Gaur represented the Appellant while Additional Govt. Advocate represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
An application was given by Dhirendra Pal Singh alleging that his village is near Swargdwari and Mahavira Ahir of Swargdwari, a miscreant, had formed a gang due to previous enmity. One day, when Atar Singh (informant’s father) and other people of the same village were going on foot, Mahavira along with 12 miscreants resorted to fire and his father fell on the roadside. Amongst the miscreants, Mahavira, Munish Lal, Chandrapal, Ram Lal, Kishan Pal and Sattu were identified. On the basis of the said application, a first information report was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404 of the IPC against Mahavira, Munshi Lal, Chandrapal, Ram Lal, Kishan Pal and Sattu and 12 armed unknown miscreants.
The Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Court), Etah framed a charge under Section 404 I.P.C. against Chandrapal. Further, a charge under Section 396 I.P.C. was framed against Kishan Pal, Sattu, Ram Lal, Munshi Singh and Chandra Pal. Alternatively, charges against them under Section 147, 302 read with Section 149 were also framed. The Trial Court, finding that the Mahavira gang was a notorious gang of dacoits which used to commit dacoity and in the present occurrence gun and cartridges were looted, came to a conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused under Section 396. It was in such circumstances that the order of conviction came to be passed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution story showed that the meeting of the first informant (son of the deceased Atar Singh) and the presence of Mahavira and his associates was all of a sudden. “The intention of the accused thus as per the prosecution case cannot be said to be of dacoity with murder”, it added.
The Bench noticed that, as per the prosecution version, the side of the first informant and the side of the accused met all of a sudden and were challenged due to the enmity between Atar Singh and Mahavira. The Bench found no evidence which was brought on record to show that Mahavira had a gang of dacoits including the surviving appellant.
Referring to Section 396, the Bench explained that the first event in the same is of one or five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity as the first act and then committing murder. As per the Bench, then every one of those persons would be punished as per the said section.
“In the present case the nexus between the act of committing dacoity and murder while committing so is not established. The prosecution case is to the effect that while going on the road all of a sudden both the parties met each other and then Mahavira challenges Atar Singh on account of his previous enmity and fires upon him on which in defence Atar Singh fires in which two miscreants received injuries and further group of Mahavira fired on Atar Singh due to which he received injuries and died after which a co-accused Chandra Pal goes and takes away the gun and belt of cartridges of Atar Singh. Thus the prosecution story in no manner is consistent of the conviction as recorded under Section 396 I.P.C. of dacoity with murder”, it stated.
The Bench noted that despite firing by so many persons, no other person was injured from the side of the first informant. It was further noticed that there was no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or pointing out of the appellant.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Court), Etah.
Cause Title: Krishna Pal and others v. State (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:179062)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates A.B.L. Gaur, Shashi Kumar Mishra
Respondent: Additional Govt. Advocate