Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The concerned court, in S.C.No.222/2014, acquits accused No.7. The reason for acquittal is as follows:

"13. P.W.1 has not explained as to how he analyzed that accused No.1 to 7 had conceived the design of committing dacoity. The evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose the attempt made by the accused to escape from the spot or regarding any resistance by the accused during raid. It is not natural that seven persons armed with deadly weapons neither offered any resistance nor caused any injury to any of the police personnel during the alleged raid.
14. As laid down in Agar v/s State of Rajasthan, reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1997 it is settled law that, "to constitute an offence under section 399 of IPC some act amounting to preparation must be proved". But in the present case as looking into evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the prosecution has not proved any act preparation for NC: 2024:KHC:26175 committing dacoity. Further as laid down in Joseph /vs/ State of Kerala reported in 1993 SCW 2900, the prosecution must show that there were persons who had conceived design of committing dacoity. But in the present case there is no cogent and material evidence to believe the case of the prosecution that the accused have designed the committing of dacoity.