Robbery By Five Persons Or More An Essential Element Of Dacoity: Gujarat High Court

Background

The Complainant registered a complaint with the Vadnagar Police Station alleging that the Complainant's son and the son of the accused had a quarrel and subsequently, Respondent 1 and 2 inflicted bat blows on the body of the Complainant. The Complainant further alleged that there were other accused as well who had beaten him and thereafter, they grabbed the jewelry of the Complainant and robbed him.

The Prosecution examined several witnesses and produced documentary evidence to bring home the charges under sections 395, 397, 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC. The Respondents denied their involvement in the offence and contended that on account of enmity with regard to certain land and the election of Sarpanch, a false case has been registered against them.

Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

Judgement

The Bench began by observing that in most cases involving offences under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC, accused persons are usually unknown. But in the instant case, this is not so since the accused and the victim are well known to each other.

Further, barring the statement of the Complainant and the Complainant's son, no other Prosecution's witnesses have supported the Prosecution's case with regard to the alleged incident. There was also no recovery of any gold ornaments from the accused persons.

The Bench noted that there was prior rivalry between the two parties on account of an election matter. Additionally, the Doctor did not notice any injury on the Complainant's ear where the earring was snatched. The Complainant's son also did not allege dacoity or robbery. Hence, the Prosecution's story did not inspire the confidence of the Bench.

The Court then ventured into explaining the ingredients for securing conviction Section 391 of IPC:

1. that the dacoity as defined in section 391 of IPC has been committed
2. that it was committed by the accused persons.

The Court also emphasised the phrase "co-jointly" to indicate that the offence must involve five or more persons. This was an "essential element" of offence under Section 395. The Court noted that there was no evidence to support the involvement of Respondents 3-6 in committing the offence of dacoity. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused persons by the Trial Court was correct.

The Bench cautioned that "it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable." This view was affirmed in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana [AIR 1995 SC 280].

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal.

Case Title: State Of Gujarat Versus Thakor Gopalji Chhanaji

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 15

Case No.: R/CR.MA/2197/2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order