# Ramphal & Ors v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1027
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 1984
- **Bench:** Avnish Saxena
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramphal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54093
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

2 All. Ramphal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1027

45. Thus, from the above discussions, it is evident that the essential ingredients of Section 34
of the IPC, namely, pre-planning, premeditation and participation, stand fully established and
proved against the surviving accused-appellant, Veerpal. Since the prosecution evidence has
conclusively proved the existence of pre-plan, premeditation and active participation on the part of
the accused-appellant, Veerpal, he is consequently liable to be convicted for the offence and charge
levelled against him by the prosecution.

46. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby rejected.

47. The accused-appellant, Veerpal, is presently on bail. His personal bond stands cancelled,
and his sureties are discharged from their liabilities. He is directed to surrender before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, within one month from today, to undergo the remaining sentence
awarded by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.05.1989.

48. In the event the accused-appellant, Veerpal, fails to surrender before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pilibhit, within the stipulated period of one month, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall
issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his arrest. Upon arrest, he shall be sent to jail to serve the
remaining sentence in accordance with the Trial Court's order dated 16.05.1989.

49. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit, is directed to intimate this Court regarding
compliance of this order.

50. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court along with the Trial Court
record forthwith.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1027
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 1984

Ramphal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to whether conviction of dacoity be made if less than five accused.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 391, 395 & 397- Dacoity - Conviction of less than five accused -Validity-
Appreciation of evidence -Held, where after discharge and acquittal the number of accused facing trial was
less than five -and even the charge was framed against four persons-conviction under S. 395 IPC is not
sustainable; further, conviction of accused under S. 397 IPC despite acquittal under S. 25 Arms Act- and
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inconsistencies in evidence, including non-examination of star witnesses- unreliable independent witnessdoubtful recovery and identification-absence of injuries despite alleged cross-firing- prosecution case doubtfulConviction set aside and accused acquitted -Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Ram Lakhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1983) 2 SCC 65
2. Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2345
3. Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641
4. Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 2 SCC 666

List of Acts
1. Arms Act, 1959
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Dacoity; inconsistencies in evidence; non-examination of star witnesses.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamta Prasad, Shashank Kumar, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Virendra Singh Parmar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mahesh Prasad Yadav, Sri Kamta Prasad, learned counsel appearing for appellant
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by two appellants, namely, Ramphal s/o
Sukh Ram and Dhuram s/o Baij Nath, under Section 374 CrPC, as they have been found guilty for
offence under Section 395 IPC for which both the accused were directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of ten years. The accused-appellant Ramphal is further found guilty for
offence under Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
For the accused Ramphal, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. This conviction
and sentence has been recorded by the trial court (Special Sessions Judge, Jhansi) by judgment and
sentence dated 24.04.1984 in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1977 (State Vs. Hindupat and others), arose
out of Case Crime No.10 of 1975 and Case Crime No.11 of 1975 for offences under Sections 395,
397, 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, respectively, Police Station Garotha, District Jhansi.

3. The prosecution case is such that a police party consisting HC Jayatram A.P., C.A.P.
Nathuram, C.A.P. Thakur Prasad and Constable Ram Kishan, who were posted for dacoity guard
duty at village Tharro, when got a tip off at 11:30 a.m. on 19.01.1975 from Hardass, a village
watchman of village Para that 8 to 9 miscreants extorting the passersby near Pearghata at Jhansi.
Believing the tip off, the police party has taken Kalka Singh Thakur and Harju Gadaria from village
Tharro and also taken the police persons from out post Kakarbai, namely, H.C. 759 C.P. Krishan
Pal, C 456 Ram Awdhar, C 507 Mahabir Singh C and 898 Brindavan. They also took Nepal Singh,
whom they met in the way to the place of incident Pearghata. The police persons reached the place
of incident and saw that 9 persons were extorting passersby. They were seen equipped with one
rifle, two SBBL gun, two country made pistols, three axes and one lathi and were spotted making
personal search of two persons namely, Lakhan Singh of village Dhanora and Baldev Prasad
2 All. Ramphal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1029
Khare, a forest guard. The police party intercepted, one of the miscreants has raised alarm that the
police has arrived, on which the miscreants have challenged the police persons and cross-firing
begun. After indiscriminate firing on each other, the firing was stopped from the side of accused
and two of the accused, namely, Ramphal and Dhuram have surrendered. Rest accused had sprinted
away. The incident is of 19th January,1975 occurred at 12:30 p.m. The F.I.R. was registered the
next date on 20th January,1975, at 12:15 p.m.

4. The memo of arrest and recovery (Exhibit Ka-1) disclosed that the two accused-appellants,
namely, Dhuram s/o Baij Nath and Ramphal s/o Sukh Ram have surrendered before the police
party and in their disclosure statements, the name of seven other accused has been mentioned in the
memo, they are Hindupat Lodhi, Ramratan, Moolchand Nai, Tijua Teli, Halkua Chamar, Sukhainya
Chamar, Ajuddi Chamar, who were stated to be present at the place of incident committing dacoity.
It is further disclosed in the memo that Nandram Yadav of village Goti had called them to commit
dacoity. From the personal search of Ramphal, the country made pistol 12 bore, two live and five
empty cartridges as well as the booty was recovered; whereas from the personal search of Dhuram,
jewellery and watch as booty had been recovered.

5. During the investigation, the identification parade of four accused, namely, Ramratan,
Hindupat Lodhi, Ramphal and Dhuram has been carried out.

6. After the investigation, the charge sheet is submitted against six accused, namely, Hindupat
Lodhi, Ramratan, Ramphal, Dhuram, Sukhainya Chamar and Tijua Teli.

7. It is mentioned in the judgment that Sukhainya Chamar and Tijua Teli, both had been
discharged.

8. By the impugned judgment, accused Hindupat Lodhi and Ramratan were not found guilty of
offence under Section 395 IPC and they have been acquitted. Accused Ramphal was also not found
guilty for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act. Hence, acquitted for the said offence.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R.
The accused, who are only four in numbers, after discharge of two accused out of six, could not be
charged for the offence of dacoity. Further submits that the police witnesses were interested
witnesses, who have falsely implicated the accused-appellants, because the accused-appellants
were sitting in a dhaba and enjoying their tea, when some police persons came there and asked
them to leave, on which, there was altercation between the accused-appellants and the police
persons, due to which the police persons have falsely implicated the accused-appellants in a false
case of dacoity. Further submits that despite firing, no one has suffered any gun shot injury.
Though, the accused Ramphal was beaten by the police persons and was injured, but his injuries
were shown to be caused due to accidental slip in cross firing. Further submits that the two of the
star witnesses, namely, Lakhan Singh and Baldev Prasad Khare, have not been examined in the
court, who were spotted being extorted by the accused during the dacoity. The learned counsel has
relied on the case of Ram Lakhan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 on the point of trial of less than five
accused for offence under Section 395 IPC; the case of Jackaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab2 on
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the point of recovery; and the case of Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi3, on the point of conviction
under Section 397 I.P.C.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State submits that the charge sheet is submitted against six
persons. It is the judicial process that the two accused have been discharged and two were
acquitted. As such, the trial of offence of dacoity was rightly initiated against the accused. He
further submits that the accused-appellant were committing dacoity, who have been identified by
the persons of the vicinity and from their possession, the ornaments and watches have been
recovered, which were identified by the owners of the articles. He further submits that the
prosecution has produced 6 witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Jayatram Singh, who is the informant and
was leading the police party; P.W.-2 Nepal Singh, who is an independent witnesses; P.W.-3 Angad
Singh the Investigating Officer; P.W.-4 Meghraj, P.W.-5 Parmeshwari, who have identified their
articles recovered from accused; and P.W.-6 Kuldeep Singh, the witness of arrest of Hindupat. The
prosecution witnesses have not only proved the documentary evidences, which are the memo of
recovery, F.I.R., site plan, memo of identification of accused and booty, but have also proved the
material Exhibit Ka.1 to 20, which have been recovered from the accused-appellants. Further
submits that the accused-appellants has not led any defence evidence. As such, submits that the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.

11. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and
perused the record.

12. The points of concern in the present appeal are:-

12.1 Whether less than five miscreants could be convicted for the offence of dacoity
under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code?

12.2 Whether the single accused-appellant, Ramphal could be convicted under Section
397 of Indian Penal Code for the offence of attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, while
committing dacoity although the trial court has acquitted the accused-appellant Ramphal for
offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, which implies that Ramphal was not carrying any weapon,
which may cause death or grievous hurt?

12.3 Whether the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and convicted the two accused-appellants, while acquitted two accused?

13. The points of concern taken hereinabove have been dealt with concomitantly, because the
matter is not only about the conviction of two accused-appellants for dacoity, but also about the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

14. Section 391 of Indian Penal Code, provides the definition of dacoity, reiterates
underneath:-

"When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where
the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and
2 All. Ramphal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1031
persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so
committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".

The above definition has its genesis from the word robbery defined under Section 390 of
Indian Penal Code, which provides that all robbery are either theft or extortion. The definition is
provided underneath:-

"390. Robbery."In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery."Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in
committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the
theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt
or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery."Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of
committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by
putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that
person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then
and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation."The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other
person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. "

15. The prosecution case deals with extortion committed by robbers, who are more than five in
numbers. As per prosecution, the number of robbers was nine, against whom the F.I.R. has been
lodged.

16. The robbery has allegedly been committed at 12:30 p.m. on 19.01.1975, reflected from
Exhibit Ka-2, the first information report lodged by P.W.-1 Jayatram Singh.

17. The initial investigation was conducted by P.W.-3 Angad Singh, who was the first
Investigating Officer and prepared the site plan Exhibit Ka-3, he has not conducted subsequent
investigation, as the investigation has been transferred to S.O. The prosecution has not produced
other Investigating Officer(s), who had conducted subsequent investigation and submitted the
charge sheet.

18. The impugned judgment reveals that Sukhainya Chamar and Tijua Teli were discharged by
the trial court. This shows that the number of accused, who had to face trial, then became four.

19. On 19.06.1981, two separate charges have been framed against four accused. The accusedappellant Ramphal has been charged for offence under Sections 395, 397 IPC and Section 25(1)(a)
of Arms Act, whereas the other accused Dhuram and the two acquitted accused were charged for
offence under Section 395 IPC This shows that at the time charge of dacoity and attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt while committing dacoity has been framed against four persons.
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. In the case of Ram Lakhan (Supra), Hon"ble the Supreme Court while allowing the
appeal against conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 395 IPC considered that the
accused-appellants, who are convicted for dacoity were less than five. The relevant paragraph is
reiterated underneath:-

"In this appeal the appellant has been convicted under Section 395, IPC, 1860 and
sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. In our opinion this appeal must succeed on a short
point. It appears from the FIR that only nine persons viz. 1. Ramroop Kurmi, 2. Ramdhoop Kurmi,
3. Rambodh Kurmi, 4. Ram Noker Kurmi, 5. Sampuran Kurmi, 6. Rambachan Kurmi, 7. Ram
Lakhan Kurmi, 8. Ram Ujagir Kurmi, and 9. Ram Pyare Kurmi have participated in the dacoity
which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other
property were looted away. The trial court had acquitted five persons and convicted four. But on
appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted Ram Lakhan the
present appellant. The position now is that out of nine persons named in the FIR who are alleged to
have participated in the dacoity Ram Lakhan is alone left. Before an offence under Section 395 can
be made out there must be an assembly of five or more persons. On the findings of the courts below
it is manifest that only one person is now left. In these circumstances therefore the appellant cannot
be convicted for an offence under Section 395. The High Court has not found that Ram Lakhan was
guilty of any overt act so as to bring his case within any other minor offence. For these reasons
therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of
offence charged under Section 395. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused is on bail. His
bail-bonds are cancelled."

21. In the present case even the charge is framed for dacoity against less than five accused.
Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone, but the evidence adduced
requires further consideration to see whether the accused-appellant could be convicted for minor
offence.

22. So far as, the role of accused-appellant Ramphal, for offence of attempt to cause death or
grievous hurt by using deadly weapon, is concerned, the trial judge has not convicted the accusedappellant Ramphal for offence under Section 25 of Arms Act on the ground that the prosecution
sanction is not a proper sanction to prosecute the accused-appellant for the offence of Arms Act.
Hence, acquitted the accused-appellant Ramphal for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms
Act, but during appreciation of evidence, the trial judge has specifically made observation that the
accused-appellant Ramphal was carrying a country made pistol, which has been proved by P.W.-1
Jayatram Singh and P.W.-2 Nepal Singh, an independent witness, who was made the witness of
recovery of the accused-appellant Ramphal and Dhuram. P.W.-2 Nepal Singh is projected as a
public witness, who is an ex-Army man and was taken by the police party, while he was on the way
leading to Kotra from Dhanora via Pearghata was made an independent witness. In his
examination-in-chief, he has stated specifically that he met the police persons at 11:00 a.m. on the
date of incident. He has also stated that in the way, he met two Hawaldars, six constables, Kalika
and Harju. He submits that by that time, when he met the police party, the police party was
proceeding to arrest the miscreants at Pearghata and he has accompanied them on their request. The
trial judge has not taken into consideration a vital point that the tip off was made to the police by
one Hardass, who is village watchman of village Para at about 11:30 a.m. stating that 8 to 9
2 All. Ramphal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1033
miscreants were robbing the passersby near Pearghata. The time of giving the tip off is specifically
mentioned in memo of recovery Exhibit Kha-1 proved by P.W.-1 Jayatram Singh. It is the crossexamination of P.W.-1 Jayatram Singh and P.W.-2 Nepal Singh, which reveals that the place of
incident, which is Pearghata, situated at a distance from where the tip off is given. The time of
intimation and the time of meeting of Nepal Singh with the police party is inconsistent to each
other and shows that Nepal Singh as framed witness., it is also because P.W.-2 stated in crossexamination that there is another way to reach Kotra from Dhanora, via Barmain and Pratappura,
on which route Pearghata does not come in way. There is no plausible reply that why this witness
has chosen a longer route to reach his house.

23. The prosecution has produced two witnesses, namely, P.W.-4 Meghraj and P.W.-5
Parmeshwari, both are students. They have also stated in their statements that the incident occurred
at 11:00 a.m., when their belongings have been looted. They are the witnesses, who have identified
their belongings, recovered from the accused. The pant, shirt and socks of Meghraj was identified
by him, which is recovered from the accused Ramphal. He has also identified accused Hindupat
and Ramphal during the test identification parade carried out at the jail, but the trial judge has
acquitted Hindupat and convicted Ramphal. There is nothing in the prosecution case to show that
the particulars of pant, shirt and socks mentioned in the memo of recovery, but the same has been
identified by the P.W.-4, Meghraj. How the clothes have been identified; what was the colour of
the clothes and the size of the clothes is nowhere reflected in the police papers. This shows a sham
identification parade of the accused-appellant and the material.

24. Moreover, P.W.-6 Kuldeep Singh, who was made a witness of arrest of Hindupat has
turned hostile and denied the arrest in his presence. Moreover, the prosecution has not produced
two star independent witnesses, namely, Lakhan Singh and Baldev Prasad Khare, who have been
projected as the victims, who have been searched by the accused while committing dacoity and the
police has reached there, rescued the two victims and arrested the accused. The victim Lakhan
Singh is of village Dhanora and victim Baldev Prasad Khare, is the forest guard. No reason has
been attributed for not producing these two star witnesses by the prosecution during the trial.
Moreover, in the cross firing between the accused and police persons, neither side suffered gun shot
injuries.

25. Even victims from whom their belongings have been looted, did not suffer any injury.

26. It could not be out of place to mention that the site plan of the place of incident of dacoity
shows that there is forest on both the sides of road. Out of 9 miscreants, only two accusedappellants have themselves surrendered and have not sprinted away along with the other
miscreants, shows substance in the defence taken by the accused-appellants in their statements
under Section 313 CrPC, that they were enjoying tea at a hotel and had an altercation with police
person due to which they have been framed in a false case of dacoity.

27. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh4 Hon"ble
the Supreme Court held that an appellate court should be slow in interfering with conviction
recorded by courts below but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to
prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from one
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expressed by trial court, can be taken. The appellate could should not shy away in giving benefit of
doubt to the accused.

28. Therefore, the appellants cannot be held guilty for offence of dacoity or any other minor
offence and liable to be acquitted for the offence of dacoity and attempt to cause death or grievous
hurt, while committing dacoity, as the trial court has incorrectly adduced evidence. Thus, the
judgment of conviction dated 24.04.1984 in Sessions Trial No.43 of 1977 (State Vs. Hindupat and
others), arose out of Case Crime No.10 of 1975 for offences under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police
Station Garotha, District Jhansi, is set aside.

29. The appeal is allowed. The accused-appellants Ramphal and Dhuram are acquitted of
offence under Sections 395, 397 IPC. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. The
material Exhibit Nos. 1 to 20, shall be disposed of as per law.

30. Record be remitted back forthwith alongwith the copy of judgment.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1034
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2021

Surajpal ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to offences punishable under Sections 376-D.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Sections 376-D, 506; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 6 - occurrence was witnessed by younger daughter of the complainant- but she was not examined
as a witness - ocular version of the prosecutrix-victim not supported from the medical evidence including the
FSL report - no any mark of injury - hymen of the prosecutrix was old torn and healed - clothes worn by the
prosecutrix were not collected - evidence adduced by the prosecution itself throws serious doubts - charges
against the accused have not been proved beyond shadow of a doubt - false implication -Appeals allowed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil.

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012