Court Acquits Survivors in 1982 Dacoity Case Citing Material Inconsistencies and Lack of Evidence

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena heard an appeal filed in 1983 by seven accused against convictions in a 1982 dacoity case from District Badaun, challenging findings of the Special Sessions Judge which had convicted them under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The appeal raised questions as to whether the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and whether the incident of dacoity was proved to have occurred in the informant’s house.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions of the surviving appellants and acquitted Ali Hasan, Harpal and Latoori of the charged offences. The Court found "material inconsistencies" in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, deficiencies in the investigation and a failure by the trial court to adjudicate the foundational question whether the dacoity had in fact occurred in the informant’s house. The Court noted that the trial judge had observed that "the factum of dacoity is not a subject of any controversy," a stance the High Court found contrary to proper evidence appreciation because the accused had denied the occurrence and pleaded false implication. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Therefore, the surviving appellants cannot be held guilty for offence of dacoity or any other minor offence and liable to be acquitted for the offence of dacoity and attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, while committing dacoity, giving benefit of doubt, as the trial court has incorrectly adduced evidence. Thus, the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1983 in Special Sessions Trial No.157 of 1982, arising out of Case Crime No.321, reported on 27.07.1982 for offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC at Police Station Ujhani, District Badaun, is set aside." The Court also relied on the principle that "an appellate court should be slow in interfering with conviction recorded by courts below but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt ... the appellate court should not shy away in giving benefit of doubt to the accused."

Background The FIR, lodged on 27 July 1982 by Dhanpal, alleged that in the intervening night of 26–27 July a group of dacoits entered his house, beat his mother and sisters and looted cash and jewellery; seven villagers were named. Prosecution witnesses included the informant, his brother and sisters and the investigating officer. The trial court convicted seven accused: three for dacoity under Section 395 IPC and four for dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under Sections 395/397 IPC. During pendency of the appeal four appellants died and their appeals were abated.

On appeal the High Court scrutinised witness statements, the site plan, medical reports and investigative material. The Court identified multiple infirmities: inconsistent accounts as to the number of dacoits (the informant spoke of 10–11 persons while the FIR named seven), divergent descriptions of weapons and injuries, and contradictions about whether faces were covered. Investigating omissions included failure to inspect or seize the licensed gun alleged to have been fired in retaliation, absence of examination of empty cartridges or pellets, no collection of a broken lock alleged at the scene, and lack of proof of the alleged cash kept at the house. Medical reports on record showed only simple injuries by hard and blunt objects, at variance with some witness claims. There was also no recovery of stolen property. The trial court’s acceptance of identification by torchlight was held to be inadequately scrutinised given these lacunae.

Applying established appellate principles, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt. The convictions dated 29.08.1983 were set aside and the surviving appellants were acquitted. The record was ordered to be returned forthwith with a copy of the judgment.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. - 2044 of 1983 Case Title: Ali Hasan And Others Versus State of U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Brij Raj; Narendra Kumar; Sanjive Kumar Gupta; Tejram For the Respondent(s): A.G.A.