Saktu And Another v. State Of U.P ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

Eleven individuals were tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bahraich, for offences under Sections 305, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of a night-time dacoity at the house of Jwala Prasad in Village Vaibahi, District Bahraich, on 25-26 March 1965. Although the trial court acquitted Accused 10, it convicted the remaining accused, sentencing Accused 6 and 7 to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 395 IPC. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court confirmed the convictions of Accused 1, 6 and 7 and acquitted the others. Accused 6 and 7 obtained special leave and appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered the opinion summarised below.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the conviction of Accused 6 and 7 for dacoity could stand when only three named persons (fewer than five) were ultimately found guilty.

Whether the identification evidence was sufficient in the absence of any overt acts attributed to the appellants and with no stolen property recovered from them.

Whether the time taken to lodge the First Information Report (FIR) cast doubt on the prosecution case.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

No distinction should have been drawn between the appellants and those co-accused whom the High Court acquitted; the appellants were similarly situated.

No witness attributed any specific overt act to the appellants and no incriminating recovery was made from them, undermining proof of participation in the dacoity.

The FIR was lodged after an undue delay, affording opportunity for manipulation of the case against them.

Because the High Court ultimately found that only three persons participated, the statutory minimum of five for the offence of dacoity was not met; therefore the conviction under Section 395 IPC was unsustainable, relying on Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441	Dacoity cannot be committed by fewer than five persons; if fewer than five accused are proved to have taken part, conviction under Section 395 IPC fails.	Distinguished. In the present case, the charge and evidence consistently showed the participation of at least 13–14 persons, though only three could be positively identified. The inability to identify the remaining participants did not reduce the number of actual offenders below five; hence the conviction for dacoity was sustained.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Ram Shankar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 441

Dacoity cannot be committed by fewer than five persons; if fewer than five accused are proved to have taken part, conviction under Section 395 IPC fails.

Distinguished. In the present case, the charge and evidence consistently showed the participation of at least 13–14 persons, though only three could be positively identified. The inability to identify the remaining participants did not reduce the number of actual offenders below five; hence the conviction for dacoity was sustained.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

1. Distinction Between Accused. The Court upheld the High Court’s differentiation, noting that the acquitted accused had prior enmity with the complainant, creating a possibility of false implication, whereas no such enmity existed with the appellants.

2. Identification Evidence. Multiple independent witnesses—Kallu (PW-3), Gokul (PW-5), Chandra Bhan (PW-8), Mangrey (PW-11), Jwala Prasad (PW-12) and Waris (PW-25)—personally knew the appellants, the dacoits were unmasked, and the witnesses uniformly identified the appellants. The Court found this sufficient despite the absence of overt acts or recoveries.

3. Delay in FIR. The incident occurred around 1 a.m.; the FIR was lodged at 10 a.m. at a police station six miles away. The Court characterised this interval as reasonable, rejecting the contention of manipulative delay and emphasising the absence of ill-will between complainant and appellants.

4. Statutory Minimum for Dacoity. Addressing the reliance on Ram Shankar Singh, the Court observed that, unlike that case, the prosecution here always alleged participation of more than five persons, some of whom remained unidentified. Therefore, the acquittal of several named accused did not negate the collective participation of a group larger than five, and Section 395 IPC was properly invoked.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed; conviction and seven-year sentence confirmed.

The decision leaves intact the imprisonment of Accused 6 and 7 and reaffirms that unidentified or absconding co-participants may satisfy the numerical requirement for dacoity under Section 395 IPC. No new legal precedent was created, but the Court clarified the limited applicability of Ram Shankar Singh where evidence shows the involvement of additional, albeit unidentified, offenders.

Saktu And Another v. State Of U.P .

Y.V Chandrachud, J.— Eleven persons were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bahraich for offences under Sections 305, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge acquitted Accused 10 but convicted the others. Accused 6 and 7 were convicted under Section 395 and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. In appeal the High Court of Allahabad upheld the conviction of Accused 1, 6 and 7 only. This appeal by special leave is filed by Accused 6 and 7 against that judgment.

2. The incident out of which the prosecution arises happened on the night between March 25 and 26, 1965 in the village of Vaibahi, District Bahraich. The complainant, Jwala Prasad, heard some noise at about midnight and no sooner did he come out of his house than was he overpowered by 4 dacoits. Fifteen or sixteen persons thereafter entered Jwala Prasad's house and looted his property. The neighbours of Jwala Prasad went to his house on hearing the commotion and one of them set fire to a heap of dry straws so as to facilitate identification of the dacoits. The First Information Report was lodged by Jwala Prasad at the Kharighat Police Station at about 10 a.m on the 26th.

3. That a dacoity took place in the house of Jwala Prasad on the night between March 25 and 26, 1965, was never disputed and is not in dispute before us. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, however, contends that the High Court was in error in making a distinction between the case of the appellants on the one hand and of those others who were acquitted by it. We cannot accept this contention because the High Court acquitted the other accused on the ground that there was enmity between the complainant and those accused. One could not exclude the possibility that those accused were implicated due to enmity. As between Jwala Prasad and the appellants there was no enmity whatsoever and therefore Jwala Prasad had no reason to implicate them falsely.

4. Learned Counsel then contends that no overt act has been attributed to the appellants by any of the witnesses and no recovery is also alleged to have been made from them. These circumstances would, according to the counsel, show that the appellants had not participated in the dacoity. There is no substance in this submission because appellants who are residents of an adjoining village were admittedly known to the several witnesses who have identified them and it is not disputed that the dacoits had not covered or marked their faces. Kallu, PW3, Gokul, PW5, Chandra Bhan, PW8, Mangrey, PW11, Jwala Prasad, PW12, and Waris, PW25 have uniformly implicated the appellants. As said by the trial court, these are independent witnesses.

5. It was urged by the learned counsel that the FIR was lodged after some delay and therefore there was opportunity for manipulation. We are not disposed to agree that there was any delay in lodging the FIR. The police station where the complaint was lodged is six miles away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence took place at about 1 a.m on the 26th and the complaint was lodged at about 10 a.m Jwala Prasad bore no ill-will or enmity to the appellants and therefore there was no question of his delaying deliberately the filing of the FIR so as to involve the appellants falsely.

6. The last contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is that as the High Court found that only three persons had participated in the occurrence it was an error to convict them of dacoity, because the offence of dacoity cannot be committed by less than five persons. In support of this submission counsel relies on the decision in Ram Shankar Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh . AIR 1956 SC 441, 1936 Cri LJ 822. We are unable to accept this submission. In Ram Shankar Singh case six known persons were charged with dacoity and as the High Court acquitted three out of the six, it was held by this Court that the remaining three could not have been convicted for dacoity. The charge in the instant case is that apart from the named seven or eight persons, there were five or six others who had taken part in the commission of the dacoity. The circumstance therefore that all, except the three accused, have been acquitted by the High Court will not militate against the conviction of those three for dacoity. It is important that it was at no time disputed that more than 13 or 14 persons had taken part in the robbery. The High Court acquitted a large number of the accused because their identity could not be established. The High Court, however, did not find that the group which committed robbery in the house of Jwala Prasad consisted of less than five persons.

7. In the result we dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of conviction and sentence.

Criminal Appeal 258 of 1969, decided on October 27, 1972

Saktu And Another v. State Of U.P .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Saktu And Another v. State Of U.P .

Comments