Whether court can try three accused of dacoity if two accused are absconding?

  Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants –

accused that even no case is made out for the offence under Section 391 IPC and they cannot be punished under Section 395 IPC as what is required to be proved is involvement of five or more persons conjointly in committing the robbery and in the present case only four persons are tried and the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of five or more persons. However, it is required to be noted that as such in the FIR there was a reference to five persons involved in committing the robbery. Even the charge-sheet was filed against five persons. However, as two accused absconded, the trial was split and three accused came to be tried. One accused Benny came to be tried subsequently and one person is still absconding. Even there are concurrent findings recorded by all the courts below that five persons were involved in committing the offence of robbery.

Merely because some of the accused absconded and less than five

persons came to be tried in the trial, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC is not made out. What is required to be considered is the involvement and commission of the offence of robbery by five persons or more and not whether five or more persons were tried. Once it is found on evidence that five or more persons conjointly committed the offence of robbery or attempted to commit the robbery a case would fall under Section 391 IPC and would fall within the definition of ‘dacoity’. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the accused can be convicted for the offence under Section 391 IPC punishable under

Section 395 IPC. {Para 16}

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.903 OF 2021

GANESAN Vs STATE 

Author: M. R. Shah, J.

Dated: October 29, 2021

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page