LAWS(ALL)-1968-9-5

GHAMANDI Vs. STATE

Decided On September 18, 1968
GHAMANDI Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (1-5) (After statins the facts, His Lordship proceeded.)

(2.) A point of law has now been raised by the learned Counsel for the defence that out of the six dacoits, two having been acquitted, it was not possible to sustain the conviction of the remaining four on a charge under Section 395, I. P. C. which contemplates participation of at least five persons in the offence. In support of his contention he relied on two decisions. The first is a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of In re, K. Appalaswami AIR 1957 Andh Pra 954 and the case of Devi v. State Both these decisions were by single judges of the respective Courts. In the first case seven persons who were, apparently, known to the complainant had been named in the first information report as having cpmmitted a dacoity by forcibly harvesting and removing his crop. The Sessions Judge found that there was no case against three of the accused persons and he acquitted them for want of proof. He, however, convicted the other four under Section 395, I. P. C. Before the High Court a point was taken on behalf of the appellants that in the circumstances of the case, three of the accused persons having been acquitted the charge of dacoity against the other four under Section 395, I. P. C. could not be sustained. The learned Judge accepted the contention observing as under:

(3.) IN the other case which came from the Rajasthan High Court, there were five accused persons who were put on trial, but two of them were acquitted on the ground that only three had taken part in committing the offence. It was, therefore, held that those three persons could not be convicted under Section 395, I. P. C. for the offence of decoity. In this case also the Court held that even as regards the three appellants who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, no offence was proved beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt. The result was that all the appellants were acquitted. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge observed as follows: