After 20 Years, Gujarat High Court Acquits Four Of Preparing To Commit Dacoity; Says State Failed To Prove Case

The Gujarat High Court overturned a trial court order which had convicted four men for "preparing to commit dacoity" after noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so the court also noted that trial court had failed to appreciate the legal requirement of five or more persons to commit the offence. It also said that prosecution's case cannot be believed since the information received had not been recorded in the police station diary nor was it recorded in the personal diary of any of the police witnesses. Further the information alleged to have been provided by the informant had not been verified to know whether the informant was harbouring any enmity against the accused, who as proved by the Investigating Officer, were all in the profession as diamond cutters. The court was hearing appeals by four men who were convicted by the trial court in 2005 under Section 399(Making preparation to commit dacoity) IPC, Section 25(1) Arms Act and Section 135 Bombay Police Act. Justice Gita Gopi in her 91 page order noted:"When FIR could not be registered prior to the raid, the least the leader of the trapping could have done was to write the information in the Police Station diary or the diary maintained under Section 44 of the police, no details were maintained of the constitution of the team and the names of the members of the team in the Police Station record. The superior officer was not informed about the information, nor was informed of the formation of team to lay the trap.Worst part of the present matter was that the investigation was conducted by the officer who was subordinate to the leader of raiding team. The Investigating Officer was following the instruction of the raiding team head. It becomes questionable, about the control, the head of the raiding team hold, to even not inform his superior officer about his action. No standard procedure had been proved to be followed by the police in cases of such raid. Law does not give unlimited power to the police to apprehend any person without following the process of law. The police is required to prove that his action was fair, independent and without bias, and was in accordance with law...In view of the analysis of the evidence and the reasons given hereinabove with the reference of the case laws, it can be definitely concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt". Information not verified or recorded by policeThe court noted that the IO had deposed that on the day of the incident he was informed by a police inspector–head of the raiding team that he had received information "from his personal trustworthy informant" about the accused proposing to commit the offence. The IO had deposed that the inspector had informed that between 6:30-8pm five persons within the age group of 20 to 30 years with weapons were going at a petrol pump near Hotel Natraj, Naroda Patiya to commit dacoity."The information transmitted to PW8 (IO) was not of accused to assemble to make preparation for dacoity, the information was they were actually to go at a petrol pump to commit dacoity. There was no information of the name of the petrol pump, nor the place where the petrol pump was situated. Then in view of this information received, the raiding team was required to arrange themselves at the petrol pump. It is not the information that five or more persons were preparing for dacoity at a particular place and they were to raid that place. The definite information conveyed to the PW8 was that the dacoits were going for dacoity at a petrol pump between 6 to 8 p.m. in the evening. The Investigating Officer, though had received the information, had failed to transcribe the same in the station diary as 'Janva Jog'," the court said. The court also said that leader of the raiding team had the duty to have recorded the information received, the details of the information in the record, sent to his superior officer was necessary to prove the authenticity of having received the information. It said that while police had the immunity under Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act not to disclose the source of information, but they cannot take the plea of immunity of not informing the superior office of the details of information received. It was noted that this information was note recorded anywhere and the inspite of the fact that the informant was traveling along with this officer throughout and as per the raiding officer the informant had identified the accused.The court noted that it appeared that Deputy Superintendent of Police was not informed about the raid and the time of receiving such information is also not proved. The court further referred to Section 399 which refers to “preparation” for the commission of dacoity and the section makes 'preparation to commit dacoity' punishable. In order to establish offence, some act amounting to preparation must be proved and...

After 20 Years, Gujarat High Court Acquits Four Of Preparing To Commit Dacoity; Says State Failed To Prove Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags