"Possibility Of False Implication Present": Allahabad High Court Acquits 4 Accused In 42 Year Old Dacoity Case

The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted 4 accused in connection with a 42-year-old Dacoity case as the bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain suspected it to be a case of 'false implication' of the accused persons.

"...we have a strong suspicion, based on the facts of the case, the informant has taken the commission of dacoity in the village as an opportunity to falsely implicate persons with whom he had enmity i.e. the appellants along with other unknown dacoits," the bench remarked. 

The case in brief

A First Information Report was registered on May 16, 1980, under Section 395/397 IPC against twelve persons. In the FIR it was alleged that at about 9 pm, the informant heard the shrieks of his brother Ram Singh (the deceased) and the informant's nephew and son of the deceased, Ranbir Singh (PW-4).

To check what was happening, the informant and his brother Dhan Singh (PW-2) and others picked up lathi, and torches and went to the spot, and there they saw that the deceased and his son (PW-4) were being assaulted by 10-12 persons, who had guns, pistol, Ballam.

When the informant party challenged them, one of the miscreants assaulted PW-4 with Ballam and, a fellow villager, namely, Gajram shot at the deceased and aimed at the informant party, which terrified the informant party and they retreated to the safety of their homes.

After looting the house of the informant, the dacoits went to the house of Saudan Singh (not examined), Hari Ram (PW-5), Naresh Pal (not examined) and Baburam (not examined) and looted articles. It was alleged that the dacoits took away mare of Hari Ram (PW-5).

After looting the articles, the dacoits went away towards west. After alleging as above, it was stated that amongst 12 persons who committed dacoity, the informant party, in the light of torches, etc., could identify 8 fellow villagers, namely, Gajram, Prem, Mohar Singh, Ramesh, Banwari, Bhagwan Singh, Rajendra and Rajpal.

Out of 8 named persons, 7 persons were charge sheeted, put to trial, and were later on convicted under Section 396 IPC. Since Gajram died during the investigation, therefore, the charge sheet wasn't filed against him.

The appeal was filed by seven persons, namely, Prem, Mohar Singh, Ramesh, Banwari, Bhagwan Singh, Rajendra and Rajpal. Out of them, appellant no.1 (Prem); appellant no.3 (Ramesh); and appellant no.4 (Banwari) have died and their appeal was abated.

The main ground for challenging the Trial Court's judgment and order was that the accused persons had been implicated in the case on account of their previous enmity with the informants.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court noted that since the commission of dacoity in the village on that fateful night had been duly proved, therefore, the only question was whether or not the accused/appellants were part of that gang of dacoits that committed dacoity in the village. The Court also had to examine the question as to whether it was a case of false implication (as alleged by the accused persons). 

To discover the truth as to whether the incident of dacoity was taken as opportunity by the informant party to falsely implicate the accused persons, the Court took into account the following factors:

- The prosecution evidence was completely silent as to what the accused appellants did at the time of dacoity.

- Except in the statement of one witness (i.e. PW-1) that Bhagwan Singh (accused no. 5) was carrying a gun and fired a shot, there is no disclosure about the role of any of the accused appellants save that, that they were noticed.

- The only witness (i.e. PW3) with whom the accused/appellants had no enmity and whose house was also looted, did not support the prosecution case either with respect to the number of dacoits who participated in the dacoity or in respect of their identity.

- There was no recovery of any incriminating material from any of the accused appellants to lend credence to the accusation against them.

- Various houses in the village were looted and after the dacoits had left, the villagers had collected in one place. This suggests that there were independent witnesses also who were affected by the dacoity but the prosecution deliberately chose not to examine them.

Against this backdrop, the Court came to the following conclusion:

"When we see all of this, coupled with the fact that the accused-appellants are residents of the same village where the dacoity had been committed yet, they chose not to cover their faces and nothing incriminating has been recovered from them, as also that all the accused do not appear to be of the same family or of the same village, it gives us a feeling that the dacoity in the village has been taken as an opportunity to falsely implicate the accused with whom the informant and the prosecution witnesses of fact except PW-3, who was declared hostile, had strong enmity"

Significantly, the Court also stressed that the suspicion regarding false implication could have been dispelled if the prosecution had produced independent witnesses i.e. non-inimical victims of the dacoity to disclose the involvement of the applicants or had proved their involvement by recovery of looted articles or other incriminating material connecting the appellants with the crime.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellants were part of the gang of dacoits that committed dacoity in the village.

With this, giving the appellants a benefit of doubt, the appeal was allowed qua the surviving appellants i.e. appellant no.2 (Mohar Singh); appellant no.5 (Bhagwan Singh); appellant no.6 (Rajendra); and appellant no.7 (Rajpal) and the judgment and order of the trial court qua the surviving appellants (supra) was set aside. All the surviving appellants (supra) were acquitted of the charges for which they have been tried. 

Case title - Prem And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1826 of 1983]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 180

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment