High Court Sets Aside Conviction in Night Dacoity; Cites Enmity, Lack of Recoveries and Improbabilities in Identification

A bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi heard an appeal by Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Hardayal, Bahori and Biri Singh against a Sessions Court conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder) arising out of Sessions Trial No. 166 of 1986, State v. Amar Singh and Others, from Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and sentence dated 22.12.1987 and quashed the convictions and life sentences imposed by the trial court. The court held that the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence, relied upon relevant Supreme Court authorities and found material improbabilities and omissions in the prosecution case. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Upon a perusal of the reasoning and findings of conviction recorded by the Trial Court, it is evident that the Trial Court has failed to consider the aspect of enmity in the correct perspective. It is well settled that enmity is a double edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute motive for commission of the crime, and, at the same time, may also provide a motive for false implication. The learned Trial Court has also failed to consider that offences of this nature are ordinarily committed in a clandestine manner, with the assailants concealing their identities and covering faces. Despite these material aspects, the learned Trial Judge did not give due consideration to them and, in a cursory manner, wrongly and contrary to settled principles of law, relied upon the prosecution evidence. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we are unable to sustain the findings, reasoning, and conviction recorded against the appellants in the present case by the learned Trial Judge."

Background

The prosecution case was that on the intervening night of 10/11 November 1985, at about 2:00 a.m., 10–12 armed persons committed dacoity at the house of one Pohap Singh in village Sakarva. The informant Tika Ram and other household witnesses, who said they knew some of the assailants, alleged that six named persons participated; one person, Summera, died of firearm injuries and nine others sustained injuries. A written report was lodged at 3:30 a.m. on 11.11.1985 and a charge-sheet under Section 396 IPC was filed. The trial court convicted and sentenced the five appellants to life imprisonment.

On appeal, counsel for the appellants contended that the witnesses belonged to the same family and harboured enmity, that crucial witness Pohap Singh was not produced, that alleged dacoits did not conceal their identities despite the night-time offence, and that no looted articles were recovered from the accused. The State relied on prompt FIRs, eyewitness identifications made in electric light and medical evidence of injuries and post-mortem report.

The High Court examined contemporaneous documents, eye-witness testimony and investigative steps, and applied precedents including Iqbal & another v. State of UP and Lakshman Prasad v. State of Bihar. The court recorded that the prosecution failed to produce corroborative connecting evidence such as recovery of looted property, did not call an electricity department official to verify supply at the relevant hour, and omitted to produce the owner of the house where the dacoity allegedly occurred. The court found that, taken together with admitted enmity, these factors rendered the testimony of prosecution witnesses unreliable and noted that "the prosecution story appears to be concocted and false." It observed that the trial court had not applied settled principles on identification and enmity correctly and, for these reasons, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.

The court further recorded that the appeal on behalf of Hardayal had abated earlier. The remaining appellants — Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Bahori and Biri Singh — were on bail, were not required to surrender, their bail bonds stood cancelled and sureties were discharged. Each of these appellants was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.25,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for appearance in the event of an appeal against acquittal. A certified copy of the judgment was ordered to be transmitted to the trial court for compliance.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. - 17 of 1988 Case Title: Amar Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Bimla Prasad, Advocate; K.C. Saxena, Advocate; Kartikey Singh, Advocate; Rajesh Pachauri, Advocate; Rajrshi Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Anil Kumar Mishra, Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.)