# Rakesh Pal & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1796 of 1984
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-pal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54308
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

3 All. Rakesh Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
175

65. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the trial court record be transmitted forthwith to
the court concerned for necessary compliance and the copy of this judgment shall also be
communicated to the Jail Superintendent, through the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 175
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1796 of 1984

Rakesh Pal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to ingredients of sec 391 IPC.

Headnotes
Dacoity-Indian Penal Code-sec 391; Arms Act-sec 25- first informant -the Head of the raiding team
was not examined-police constable who have fired VLP was not examined -makes the incident highly doubtfulprosecution even failed to prove any conspiracy between the accused -evidence about the meeting and
making preparation for dacoity was also very bleak- country-made pistols recovered - not found loaded with a
live cartridges -no FSL report that the pistols were loaded- prosecution could not establish its case-three
persons arrested on the spot-less than five-basic ingredients of sec 391 IPC not fulfilled-conviction quashedconviction u/s 25 of the Arms Act does not warrant interference-as weapon was recovered from the
possession of the Appellant-benefit of probation extended-Appeal partly allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code,1860
2. Arms Act

List of Keywords
Conspiracy between the accused; preparation for dacoity; FSL report; total number of persons; weapon was
recovered from the possession; benefit of probation.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajesh Kumar, B.R. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the surviving appellant no. 2, Sri Ratan Singh,
learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The instant appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the appellants against
the judgement and order of conviction dated 04.06.1984 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge,
Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 236 of 1982 and Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1982 whereby the
appellants were convicted under sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Each of the
appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 399 I.P.C.,
rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 402 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one
year under section 25 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3.As the Appellant No. 1, Rakshpal and Appellant No. 3 Sahab Singh had died during the
pendency of the appeal, therefore, the appeal in respect to the said appellants stood abated on
27.10.2025 and 22.9.2025 respectively.

4. Only surviving appellant Ramesh S/o Chimni Lal is before the Court through his counsel
challenging his conviction passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from record, appears to be that, on 13.11.1980 at 8:15 P.M., the
Station House Officer, Santosh Kumar Awasthi, posted at Police Station- Khairgarh, District- Mainpuri, S.I.
B.L.Varma, PW-2, along with Constable Prem Pal Gautam, PW-3, and Constables Raj Kumar, Keshri
Singh, Chiranji Lal, Narayan Singh, Hakim Singh, Ram Khilari and Harish Chandra went in search of
wanted accused persons in Crime No.74 of 1980 under section 396 IPC and also in Crime No.-76 of 1980
under Sections 395/397 IPC. During the search, at about 12 P.M., the Station House Officer received an
information that 8 to 10 miscreants armed with deadly weapons were making preparation for committing
dacoity in Village Kuri, District Mainpuri, near the shala of Chhotey Baba. When the Police Party reached
the spot, all persons tried to escape however, the Station House Officer challenged the dacoits and directed
constable Raj Kumar to fire VLP, immediately two shots of VLP were fired and there was sufficient light
and three accused namely Sahab Singh, Ramesh S/o Chimani Lal, R/o Village-Indumai and Rakshpal were
arrested and rest of the accused escaped. The arrested accused disclosed the name of co-accused who fled
away from the spot as Ratan Singh, Ram Snehi, Sunahri, Ram Singh, Ramesh S/o Tula Ram and two
companion of Ramesh who were known to Ramesh. From the possession of Sahab Singh, one country made
pistol of 12 bore and four live cartridges were recovered and from the possession of Ramesh S/o Chimni Lal,
one country made pistol of 12 bore and three live cartridges were recovered. From the possession of Raksha
Pal, one country made pistol of 12 bore and five live cartridges were recovered. The cartridges recovered
from the accused were sealed on the spot and Ex.-ka-3 was prepared by B.L. Varma (PW-2).

6. Accordingly, the Station House Officer got the case registered as Case Crime No. 217 of
1980 under Sections 399/402 IPC on 14.11.1980 at 6.30 A.M., vide GD No. 5 dated 14.11.1980.

7. The Investigation was conducted by PW-4, S.I. N.K Sharma, who was then posted at Police
Station Kisni, District Mainpuri and recorded the statement of the first informant and other
witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., made spot inspection and submitted the charge-sheet against
the accused Sahab Singh, Raksh Pal and Ramesh S/o Chimni Lal under sections 399/402 IPC. The
accused were further, charge-sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Rest of the accused
namely Sunahri, Ratan Singh and Ram Singh, were charge-sheeted on 06.04.1981 under sections
399/402 IPC. On 29.06.81, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Ram Snehi and Ramesh S/o Tula
Ram under sections 399/402 IPC as absconders. The prosecution sanction was sought from the District
3 All. Rakesh Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
177
Magistrate, Mainpuri against the accused persons namely Sahab Singh, Ramesh S/o Chimni Lal and Raksh
Pal under section 25 of the Arms Act.

8. Charges were framed under sections 399/402 IPC and section 25 of the Arms act against all the
appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced as many as four witnesses. All of whom
supported the prosecution case. PW1, Girwar Singh was the Head Mohrir, who proved the Chik FIR and the
General Diary. P.W2, B.L. Varma, the Sub-Inspector was examined as an eye-witness, who supported the
prosecution case and proved the recovery memo of case properties. PW-3, Prem Pal Gautam, the member of
the Police Party, was also examined as an eye-witness who supported the prosecution case and the case
property recovered. P.W.-4, N.K. Sharma, the Investigating Officer, proved the charge-sheets submitted
under sections 399/402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and the prosecution sanction obtained from the
District Magistrate.

10. The learned Trial Court found the prosecution evidence reliable and trustworthy and convicted the
three appellants under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

11. The surviving Appellant No. 3, Ramesh, in his defence, denied the prosecution case and asserted
that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity.

12. Learned counsel for the surviving appellant argued that there was insufficient light at the spot and it
was not possible for the Police Officers to have recognized the appellants in the dark winter night which
makes the prosecution case highly doubtful and unbelievable. Further, it has been submitted that all the four
prosecution witnesses produced by the prosecution were police personnel and no independent public witness
was examined. The first informant S. K. Awasthi, who was the Head of the raiding team was not examined,
even the police constable, Raj Kumar who is stated to have fired VLP was not examined which makes the
incident highly doubtful. The prosecution even failed to prove any conspiracy between the accused and the
evidence about the meeting and making preparation for dacoity was also very bleak. In case, the appellants
were making preparation for dacoity, the country-made pistols recovered from their possessions were not
found loaded with a live cartridges and there was no FSL report that the pistols were loaded.

13. It has been submitted that the prosecution could not establish its case under sections 399/402 IPC as
regards the participation of the rest of accused whose presence was not found and were not arrested on the
spot and were finally acquitted by the Trial Court.

14. In such circumstances, the total number of persons who were arrested on the spot and actually
participated in the crime, were only three in number namely Rakesh Pal, Ramesh S/o Chimani Lal and Sahab
Singh. As the number of the accused who actually participated in the crime, were less than five, therefore the
basic ingredient of Section 391 IPC of dacoity was not fulfilled and the conviction of the accused-appellant
No. 2 under Section 399/402 IPC is bad in the eyes of law.

15. Considering the submissions advanced above and from the perusal of records, the appeal deserves
acceptance in part.
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. The conviction of the surviving appellant as recorded by the trial Court for the offence under
Section 399/402 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant No. 2 Ramesh S/o Chimani Lal is hereby
acquitted of this charge.

17. The conviction of the appellant Ramesh under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Trial
Court does not warrant any interference as the weapon was recovered from the possession of the appellant at
the time of spot arrest and the Investigating Officer N. K. Sharma had proved the prosecution sanction,
granted by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri and no such plea was taken by the accused-appellant in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of conviction
recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is hereby affirmed.

18. Adverting to the facts of the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant
Ramesh was a previous convict and that the alleged incident took place on 13.11.1980 and more than 45
years have been passed. Therefore, having regard to the age, character and antecedents of the appellant, the
Court is of the opinion that the appellant should be extended the benefit of probation while maintaining the
conviction as recorded by the trial Court.

19. It is directed that instead of sentencing the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, the appellant
shall be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, 1958 upon
entering into a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- and surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
to keep peace and maintain good behaviour for the period of one year. The appellant shall also furnish an
undertaking to the trial Court that he shall not commit any offence during the said period. The seized armed
stands confiscated the State.

20. In case, there is breach of any of the conditions, the appellant shall be taken into custody and shall be
called upon to undergo sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The bonds and sereties aforesaid be field by the
appellant within two months from the date of the judgment.a

21. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stands discharged.

22. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

23. The trial Court record be returned forthwith.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 178
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:LUCKNOW 31.03.2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2148 of 2004

Mewa Lal & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents