P&H HC Acquits Two Men Of Dacoity, Citing Contradictions In Injured Complainant’s Accounts And Eyewitness Testimony That They Were Not Involved

The appeals arose from the appellants’ convictions for dacoity under Sections 395/397 IPC; Manoj Kumar was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that four persons in a car intercepted the complainant and Pankaj, injured the complainant and took his bag.

The trial court sentenced both appellants to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for the IPC offence and sentenced Manoj Kumar to a concurrent two-year term under the Arms Act.

The complainant identified neither assailants nor their names in the FIR.

Pankaj, the other alleged eyewitness, was not called by the prosecution but testified for the defence that the appellants were not involved.

The appellants challenged the convictions on grounds including contradictions in the complainant’s accounts, non-examination of Pankaj and deficiencies in identification and recovery evidence.

The prosecution was required to prove the appellants’ guilt through evidence sufficiently reliable to establish their involvement in the charged offences; material contradictions and deficiencies undermining the credibility of the identification and recovery evidence could prevent that finding.

The Court treated a test identification parade as necessary in the circumstances where the assailants were not named in the FIR and their identities were not otherwise established.

It also held that disclosure statements unsupported by a discovery related to the case were inadmissible, referring to Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

The relevant offences were charged under Sections 395/397 IPC and, as to Manoj Kumar, Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court found material inconsistencies between the complainant’s police statement and his testimony regarding how many persons alighted from the car and how many injuries were inflicted; his account also differed from the medical evidence concerning the number and nature of the injuries.

The prosecution did not examine Pankaj, whose defence testimony denied the appellants’ involvement, and the Court considered that evidence destructive of the prosecution’s identification case.

The Court further relied on the absence of a test identification parade, the failure to produce or have the complainant identify the recovered bag, and the lack of a demonstrated discovery supporting the disclosure statements.

Taken together, these deficiencies meant the evidence did not reliably connect the appellants to the dacoity; the same evidentiary deficiencies also undermined the alleged firearm recovery against Manoj Kumar.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.