Allahabad HC Acquits Two Men in 1978 Dacoity Case, Finding Their Arrest and Loot Recoveries Unproved

The appellants were convicted in a dacoity case under Sections 395/397 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that witnesses identified the accused during a dacoity and that police arrested them shortly afterwards, recovering cash and other articles.

During the appeal, all appellants except Jaswant (Appellant No. 4) and Chandrapal (Appellant No. 6) died, and the appeal abated as to them.

The surviving appellants challenged the reliability of the eyewitness evidence, the alleged arrests and recoveries, and the proof of the lists of looted property.

The Trial Court had sentenced Chandrapal to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC and Jaswant to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 IPC.

The Court considered the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and applied the criminal-law requirement that the prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where material deficiencies leave the alleged participation of the accused uncertain, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

It also directed the appellants to furnish bonds under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The prosecution failed to establish the authenticity and legal proof of the lists of looted articles, and the alleged recoveries consisted of only a small portion of the property said to have been taken.

The evidence also raised serious doubts about the timing of the FIR, the presence of the police and accused at the alleged arrest site, and whether the appellants had in fact been arrested immediately after the dacoity.

Taken together, these deficiencies undermined the reliability of the arrest and recovery evidence and made it unsafe to rely on the prosecution case to establish the appellants’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

It allowed the appeal as to those appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, and acquitted them by extending the benefit of doubt.

Their bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged, but each appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties under Section 437-A CrPC.