Acquittal in Dacoity Planning Sustained Due to Absence of Overt Act and Failure to Seal Seized Weapons

On February 27, 2017, G.R.P. Outpost Anuppur received an informer’s tip regarding 7–8 masked persons armed with weapons planning a dacoity on Train No. 58220.

A police team apprehended eight accused persons near the railway station and allegedly recovered knives, a sword, chili powder, and keys.

The accused were charged under Sections 399 (preparation for dacoity) and 402 (assembling for dacoity) of the IPC.

The Trial Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur) acquitted the respondents on July 28, 2022.

The State subsequently filed this appeal along with an application for leave to appeal.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assembled with the specific intention and preparation to commit dacoity.

2. Whether the lack of independent witnesses and failure to seal seized articles at the spot vitiated the prosecution's case.

3. Whether there are sufficient grounds to interfere with a judgment of acquittal under the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

The court applied Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which require proof of criminal intention and overt acts of preparation for dacoity.

Regarding appellate jurisdiction over acquittals, the court relied on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which dictates that if the trial court’s view is "plausible," the appellate court cannot overturn it merely because another view is possible.

It further cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and interference is only permitted in cases of patent perversity or misreading of evidence.

The Court observed that while the police claimed the accused were planning a dacoity, there was no evidence that any witness overheard a conversation or saw an overt act signifying a conspiracy.

The apprehension took place at a railway station—a public place—and it was deemed improbable that such a meeting would occur openly without concealment.

Critically, the Court found that the seizure memos (Ex. P/1 to P/8) lacked seal impressions, suggesting the weapons were not secured at the spot, thus breaking the chain of custody.

Additionally, the prosecution relied solely on "departmental witnesses" (police personnel) and failed to examine any independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public area.

The Court found that these material omissions and contradictions made the Trial Court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt a "plausible and well-reasoned view".

The Court affirmed that an order of acquittal should only be interfered with if the judgment is perverse or legally erroneous. Finding no such infirmity, the Court dismissed I.A. No. 941/2023 (leave to appeal) and consequently dismissed the Criminal Appeal.