Court affirms impersonation and robbery convictions, acquits woman pillion for lack of evidence of common intention

A Division Bench of Justices Ilesh J. Vora and R. T. Vachhani of the Gujarat High Court heard consolidated appeals arising from a Sessions Court judgment that convicted three persons for impersonation, cheating by personation, and robbery/dacoity under Sections 170, 419, 395 read with Section 114 IPC. The appeals included separate challenges by the convicted persons and an enhancement appeal by the State against the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad.

The Court upheld convictions for two accused on impersonation and robbery-related charges but altered the legal characterization and sentence; it set aside conviction of the woman accused who had travelled as a pillion. The Court found the victim’s testimony and the police witnesses to be “clear, cogent and creditworthy,” and noted that “there is a ring of truth in his evidence.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We have carefully examined Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code which says that in all robbery, there is either theft or extortion. Extortion is robbery, if the offender at the time of committing extortion, put in fear of instant hurt and wrongfully restrained the victim and therefore, the act of robbing Rs.300/- and an attempt to commit extortion of Rs.50,000/- would certainly fall under the definition of robbery and in our opinion, the appellants accused were found in the possession of Rs.300/-, a driving licence and mobile phone of PW:1 soon after the incident of robbery and therefore, though the charge against the accused under Section 395 is not proved, but charge of robbery was already there and considering the number of accused, the charge under Section 392 which provides a punishment of robbery has been proved and established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.”

Background

The criminal case arose from an incident on 4 January 2010. The complainant Prakash Patel (PW-1) gave a lift on his motorcycle to Lata (accused A5) who allegedly invited him to a secluded spot near Hari Om Ashram, Nadiad. There, four men in an Indica car arrived, purportedly introduced themselves as Local Crime Branch police, assaulted PW-1 with a lathi, and demanded settlement money of Rs.50,000. PW-1 said the assailants took Rs.300, his driving licence and mobile; they then travelled toward Ahmedabad to secure the larger sum. Police at a vehicle check intercepted the car, discovered the impersonation and recovered the articles; two accused later died during proceedings.

At trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted three accused under Sections 170, 419 and 395 read with Section 114 IPC and sentenced them, inter alia, to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence treated as dacoity. Each convict obtained separate criminal appeals and the State filed an enhancement appeal against the sentences.

The High Court reviewed prosecution evidence including PW-1’s testimony, police witnesses who conducted the vehicle check and seized articles, medical evidence of injuries, and investigative records. The Court concluded that PW-1’s presence at the scene and his account were reliably corroborated by police evidence and medical records. It held that accused A5 (Lata) did not have sufficient evidence linking her to a common intention to commit robbery; the prosecution did not, for example, produce call records or other proof that she lured the co-accused, and accordingly her conviction under the robbery provision was not proved beyond reasonable doubt — her appeal was allowed and she was acquitted. The Bench found that charges under Section 419 overlapped with Section 170 (personation of a public servant) and thus acquitted the accused on Section 419 where Section 170 was established.

As to the two other appellants, the Court found impersonation under Section 170 proved and concluded that the facts fitted robbery (Section 392) rather than dacoity (Section 395), because with the acquittal of A5 fewer than five persons were found to have committed the offence. The Court therefore substituted conviction under Section 395 with conviction under Section 392, reduced the substantive sentence for robbery from five years to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, left the sentence for Section 170 unaltered, ordered sentences to run concurrently and kept the fine orders intact. The State’s appeal for enhancement was dismissed.

The High Court partly allowed Criminal Appeals Nos. 1066/2011 and 1071/2011 (Mahendrapratap Rajput and Kehul Kantilal Shah), directed that their bail bonds stand cancelled and that they surrender within six weeks to serve the altered sentence; Criminal Appeal No.1092/2011 filed by Lata (A5) was allowed and her bail surety was discharged. Criminal Appeal No.1316/2011 filed by the State for enhancement was dismissed.

Case Details: Case No.: R/CR.A/1316/2011 (with Cr.A.1066/2011, Cr.A.1071/2011, Cr.A.1092/2011) Case Title: State of Gujarat Versus Vishalkumar Somchandra Shah & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr Bhargav Pandya, APP for the Appellant - State For the Respondent(s): HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for Opponent/Respondent No.1; Mr Ashish M. Dagli (2203) for Opponent/Respondent No.5 and for Appellant - Original Accused No.5; Mr G. R. Manav (6064) for Opponent/Respondent Nos.2,4; Mr P. V. Patadiya (5924) for Opponent/Respondent No.1; Mr Jigar Salvi for Appellant - Original Accused No.4; Mr J. K. Parmar for Appellant - Original Accused No.2.