Conviction under Section 398 IPC is unsustainable absent proof of attempt to rob and reliable identification.

On 15.04.2007, the complainant (PW-5), a businessman, was returning from a weekly market in a tempo with his sons

Near Bataikela, three individuals on a motorcycle allegedly attempted to intercept the vehicle; one individual purportedly brandished a country-made firearm to force a stop

The complainant continued driving, and the accused reportedly lost control of their motorcycle and fell

Following descriptions provided by the complainant to local villagers, the appellants were identified

Police subsequently arrested the appellants and recorded memorandum statements leading to the seizure of a firearm, a bird-shooting gun, and an iron knife

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 398 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of Section 398 IPC, specifically the "attempt" to commit robbery while armed with a deadly weapon

Whether the identification of the appellants in Court was legally sustainable in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and in light of contradictory witness testimonies

The Court primarily applied Section 398 of the IPC, which prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years for attempting to commit robbery or dacoity while armed with a deadly weapon

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Chinnadurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1996 SC 5466), which held that a conviction under Section 398 cannot be sustained if the evidence fails to prove an actual attempt at robbery or dacoity, such as when no property is removed or no specific overt act of robbery is established

The High Court determined that the Trial Court failed to rigorously scrutinize the evidence.

Although the complainant (PW-5) and his sons (PW-6 and PW-7) initially alleged an attempted robbery, they admitted during cross-examination that the appellants neither assaulted them nor committed any robbery

The Court observed that the identification of the accused was based on hearsay from villagers rather than a Test Identification Parade (TIP), casting doubt on the reliability of the dock identification

Furthermore, the independent witness to the seizure (PW-8) turned hostile and denied the recovery of weapons

Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence of an "attempt" to rob while armed, as required to satisfy the high evidentiary threshold of Section 398 IPC

It held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt

The appellants were acquitted of all charges and directed to furnish personal bonds pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023