Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Dacoity Conspiracy — Finds Prosecution Story Improbable and Unreliable

Case Name: Piru & Others v. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: January 7, 2015
Citation: CRA-S-1808-SB-2002
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of three appellants charged under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assembling with intent to commit dacoity. Justice Rekha Mittal observed that the prosecution’s version—that the accused were overheard at night planning a dacoity in a public place—was “highly improbable and against normal human conduct.” The Court held that merely sitting together with weapons does not automatically imply preparation or conspiracy for dacoity, and that the evidence lacked credibility to sustain a conviction.

Summary: The appellants, Piru, Amru, and Rehshu, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years and three years respectively. The prosecution alleged that on July 30, 2001, a police party acting on secret information found six men under a shed near Franswala bus stand planning to commit a dacoity at the Padla Shiv Shakti petrol pump. Three escaped, while three were arrested with alleged recoveries of two country-made pistols, cartridges, and a gandasi.

The defence contended that the story was fabricated to show a false performance by the police. It was argued that no rational person would plan a dacoity in a public place or speak loudly enough to be overheard by a police informant. The Court found merit in this argument, noting that the alleged overhearing of a detailed conversation until the police arrived was implausible. Justice Mittal cited Bagga @ Bangu v. State of Haryana (2011 2 RCR (Criminal) 238) and Chaturi Yadav v. State of Bihar (1979 AIR SC 1412), reaffirming that mere assembly with weapons does not prove intent to commit dacoity without corroborative evidence of planning or overt acts.

Decision: The High Court held that the prosecution story was inherently doubtful and based on conjecture. It set aside the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court, acquitting the appellants of all charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. The Court ordered that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case, underscoring that speculative assumptions cannot replace proof in criminal law.