Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“Factum of Dacoity Is Not Beyond Scrutiny” –  In a remarkable judgment delivered after more than four decades of pendency, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

Hon’ble Justice Avnish Saxena, allowing the appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., held that the prosecution failed to establish the very occurrence of dacoity beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court erred in presuming the “factum of dacoity” without proper judicial scrutiny.

The Court observed that “the trial court at the very start of judgment has made observation that the factum of dacoity is not a subject of any controversy,” terming such an approach contrary to the “basic principles of law of appreciation of evidence.”

The conviction and sentence dated 29.08.1983 were accordingly set aside, and the surviving appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.

Alleged Midnight Dacoity in Village House

The prosecution case stemmed from a written report lodged by Dhanpal (P.W.-1) on 27.07.1982 alleging that in the intervening night of 26/27 July 1982, seven named accused from the same village committed dacoity at his house. It was alleged that the accused looted cash of Rs.3,000/- and several silver ornaments and garments, and fired gunshots while fleeing.

The trial court convicted three accused under Section 395 IPC and four accused under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC. During pendency of the appeal, four appellants passed away and the appeal abated against them. The surviving appellants continued the challenge.

“Dacoity Cannot Be Assumed” – Foundational Fact Not Established

Justice Saxena found serious fault with the trial court’s approach in presuming that dacoity had occurred without examining whether the prosecution had proved that foundational fact.

The High Court noted that the accused had denied the occurrence itself and alleged false implication due to village rivalry and political enmity. Therefore, it was “the first and foremost duty of the trial court to look into the evidence as to whether the incident of dacoity took place.”

The Court identified multiple glaring lapses in the prosecution case which cast serious doubt on the very occurrence.

Investigative Lapses: No Cartridges, No Broken Lock, No Proof of Cash

The High Court highlighted that although five gunshots were allegedly fired — two by the accused and three by one Ganga Ram from his licensed gun — the Investigating Officer did not recover any empty cartridges or pellets. Nor was Ganga Ram’s licensed gun examined to verify whether shots had indeed been fired.

The Court remarked that verifying the gun “was to look into the veracity of the statement of informant whether or not dacoity took place.”

Further, despite the allegation that the dacoits broke a lock, the broken lock was never seized. The prosecution also failed to verify whether the informant actually possessed Rs.6,000/- allegedly kept in the house — said to be proceeds from onion sale and advance for land transaction.

“No document pertaining to proposed sale of land… nor the same is produced before the court,” the judgment records.

Significantly, there was no recovery of any looted property from any of the accused.

Identification in Torch Light: Contradictions and Improbabilities

The High Court meticulously examined the testimony of the four prosecution witnesses and found material inconsistencies.

While the informant claimed that 10 to 11 dacoits had entered the house, only seven were named in the FIR. One witness claimed that some accused had covered their faces, while another stated specific identification. Statements differed on whether the accused carried guns, country-made pistols, lathis, or knives.

The Court particularly noted that P.W.-3 Ishwarwati claimed to have suffered knife injuries, yet the medical report showed only injuries caused by “hard and blunt object.” The medical examination did not corroborate the alleged knife attack.

The site plan also did not support the prosecution’s version regarding the vantage point from where the accused were identified. The Court observed that the location shown in the site plan made it doubtful whether the witnesses could have seen the faces of the accused while they allegedly fled.

The Court concluded that “material inconsistencies on the point of covering of face by the accused, holding the weapon and injuries caused” rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Village Enmity and Political Rivalry: Possibility of False Implication

A significant factor weighed by the Court was that all accused and witnesses belonged to the same village. Evidence on record showed prior disputes, including a complaint filed by one of the accused months before the incident and rivalry arising from a recent Pradhani election.

The Court found it “hard to believe that the accused, who are having their families in the village, will enter the house of any person of the village bare faced to commit dacoity,” especially when they had no prior criminal antecedents.

The absence of recovery, combined with political rivalry and village enmity, created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.

Appellate Duty: Benefit of Doubt Must Follow

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court reiterated that although appellate courts are slow to interfere with convictions, where the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and an alternative plausible view exists, benefit of doubt must be extended.

After “marshalling the entire evidence,” the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court had incorrectly appreciated the evidence.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.1983.

Appellant Ali Hasan was acquitted of the charge under Section 395 IPC, and appellants Harpal and Latoori were acquitted of offences under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC. The appeal had already abated in respect of the deceased appellants.

The judgment stands as a powerful reaffirmation that in criminal jurisprudence, suspicion cannot replace proof and presumption cannot substitute evidence. By emphasizing that even the “factum of dacoity” must be strictly proved, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that benefit of doubt is not a concession but a fundamental right of the accused.

Date of Decision: 16/02/2026