Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.1988 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1988 (State Vs. Vishwa Nath Tewari and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 123 of 1986 dated 21.10.1986, under Section 396 IPC, Police Station Isha Nagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offence under Section 396 IPC and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life.

13. Upon the submission of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, vide his order dated 21.01.1988, took cognizance of the offence. Finding the case to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1988 and made over to the court of the 1st Additional Session Judge, Kheri, for trial.

14. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants under Section 396 IPC. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused persons, but they denied the charges leveled against them, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

37. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the trial court considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the statements given by the accused persons, and the material available on record, found that the accused-appellant had committed dacoity. The court further found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge under Section 396 of the IPC against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt hence convicted them for the offence under Section 396 of the IPC and consequently sentencing them to imprisonment for life.

67. In view of the above points of determination, we also find that the foundational charge of dacoity coupled with murder under Section 396 IPC is highly doubtful and unsustainable. It is an undisputed fact that the parties were involved in an intense political rivalry (partybandi), which renders the identification of the appellantswho were known next door neighbours and did not conceal their facesextremely suspect, suggesting the primary motive was one of vengeance (marpeet) rather than robbery. This suspicion is reinforced by the highly improbable circumstance that the miscreants, if their intent was genuinely dacoity, would have spared the deceased's jewellery (including a silver 'Kardhani') which was allegedly being worn. A clear and fatal factor that further diminishes the prosecution's case is the complete failure of the Investigating Officer to recover any looted article from the accused or even empty cartridges from the spot, despite the clear allegation of dacoity. The legal principle is well-established that when the primary motive of dacoity is shrouded in high doubt, particularly when the identification is questioned due to pre-existing enmity, the grave charge under Section 396 IPC must necessarily fail, resulting in the appellants being entitled to the benefit of the doubt.