1 APHC010447892007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 781, 948, 985 AND 1026 OF 2007 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 781 OF 2007 Between: 1. KAKARALA RAJU,, S/O. NOOKARAJU, T.P.GUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 948 OF 2007 Between: 1. GUDE HARIBABU, & ANOTHER,, S/O BHASKARA RAO, ANNAMPALLI VILLAGE, DUBACHERLA (M), WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BETHALA SOMARAJU,, S/O YELURAJU, NELLAJERLA (V), WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2 ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 985 OF 2007 Between: 1. KATHERA SREENIVASA RAO, S/O UGADI, R/O DUBACHERLA VILLAGE, W.G.DIST. 2. SANGAMREDDY SURESH,, S/O ADINARAYANA, R/O DUBACHERLA VILLAGE, W.G.DIST. 3. EEDHI DURGA RAO,, S/O SURYARAO, R/O DUBACHERLA VILLAGE, W.G.DIST. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1026 OF 2007 Between: 1. CHILAPARTHI RAMBABU AND ANOTHER, S/O. RAMASUBBA RAO, R/O. DUBACHERLA VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. BALA CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, R/O. NALLAJERAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P MOHAN RAO 2. LEGAL AID 3 Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Common Order: All the Criminal Revision Cases have been preferred against the concurrent finding of learned Courts below, whereby, the Trial Court convicted the present Petitioners for an offence punishable under Sections 397, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the finding and observations of the learned Courts below are illegal and improper. He further submits that the ingredients of an offence of dacoity requires that 5 or more persons, to conjointly commit or attempted to commit theft or robbery. He further submits the term “conjoint commission of offence” by the Petitioners is missing in the Charge Sheet. He further submits that the Investigating Agency has callously submitted a charge sheet by citing Petitioners as Accused persons in a common case of decoity. He further submitted that it would appear from the prosecution case that Test Identification parade of instant case was done after long 15 days of incident. The prosecution has no explanation why such inordinate delay caused to conduct Test Identification parade. Moreover, Accused No.5 was not identified in such Test Identification parade. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that PWs 1 to 11 were examined on behalf of the prosecution, but none of them has stated 4 regarding alleged „conjoint action‟ of the Petitioners to commit an offence of decoity. He further submits that particular facts of the prosecution case suggested that all the Accused persons were entered into a lorry and bound the lorry driver (A1) and its helper (A2) by some rope and also gagged some cloths inside their mouth, in this particular case, the Police have not seized any rope or cloths from the scene of offence to justify the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that doctor has examined as PW-7 in this case, who categorically submits that the injury has inflicted over the persons of the injured may be self inflicted injuries. It is further argued that the prosecution case for commission of robbery was made in respect of Rs. 3,500/- which alleged to have been snatched from the pocket of Accused No.1. The prosecution case also suggests the amount of money consists of all Indian currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, but during the course of investigation, the Police only recovered Rs.100/- from Accused persons. Such type of recovery in this particular case cannot conjoint allegation of robbery of Rs. 3,500/- from the possession of the driver. 5. Learned counsel further argued that the entire case records if properly scrutinized, it would be revealed that this is a stock case of Police Authority, who only placed blame upon the Accused persons to maintain their case records good. Further, learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has committed an error in passing the order of conviction against the Accused persons. Learned counsel further argued that it is not possible for all 8 Accused persons including the PWs 1 and 2 to be fitted inside the cabin of 5 the lorry. Thus, the prosecution case is not at all believable. The offence as alleged as never been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the erroneous observation of the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor refuting the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon the observations of the learned Trial Court. He placed on record by showing necessary paragraphs of the Judgment of the learned Trial Court as noted down the prosecution case in detail. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, who stated the commission of offence and antecedent thereto by the present Accused persons. He further pointed out that learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court has categorically observed in the Judgments the points which are mentioned by the learned counsel for the Petitioners. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court is not illegal and proper on attending facts and circumstances of the case. There is no merit to entertain the instant Criminal Case. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the observation of the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court. 6 10. In a nutshell, prosecution case has narrated a factum of robbery by the present Accused persons. It has been stated that the Accused persons being a common passengers approached PWs 1 and 2 being a driver and helper of a lorry to allow them to carry from one place to another with an amount of Rs. 30/- each. At that time, when they reached a lonely place, one of the Accused intends to stop the lorry on the pretext of calls of nature. When the lorry was stopped, Accused No.1 place a knife on the neck of the driver (PW-1) and threatened him with dire consequences. Accused No.5 and 6 assaulted the driver as well as helper and one of the Accused dragged out the purse of the driver containing Rs. 3,500/- all in Rs. 500/- notes denomination. 11. It has been further alleged that some of the Accused persons dragged PW-2 from the cabin and pushed his head under the tyre of the lorry, so that he may disclose regarding cash placed in the cabin. Thereafter, the prosecution case suggests that Accused persons bound and gagged PWs 1 and 2 by rope and cloths, so that they may not raise voice, thereafter, all the Accused persons left the lorry with PWs 1 and 2 therein and boarded one Auto rickshaw drove by PW-3. PW-3 raised an objection to carry all 8 persons in a Auto, but PW-3 was also threatened with dire consequences by the Accused persons and thereby PW-3 carried all Accused persons, thereafter, they flooded away. 12. During the course of investigation, the Police Authority apprehended some of the Accused persons and recovered an amount of Rs. 100/- from some Accused persons and also recovered Cell Phone, Tape Recorder, 7 Screw Driver, Wrench, Button Knife and cash from all the Accused persons under denomination of Rs. 100/-. 13. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined total 11 witnesses including the lorry driver and helper/ cleaner. Auto Driver was also examined as PW-3. Prosecution has also exhibited 22 documents including some confessional statements of Accused No.3 to 8. Report of Test Identification Parade proceedings was also exhibited as Ex.P20; case materials were marked as Material Objects 1 to 19. 14. It is argued before this Court that to constitute an offence of decoity the prosecution must have prove that the alleged commission of robbery has been omitted by more than 5 persons conjointly. 15. I have perused the statutory definition of term decoity defined under Section 391 of Indian Penal Code is set out hereunder: “391. Dacoity.—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 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”. 16. In Paragraph No.12 of the Judgment of the learned Trial Court it has been observed the arguments of the defence recording absence of term „conjointly‟ in prosecution case. In deciding the such issue, learned Trial Court has indicated the version of PWs 1 and 2 and also observed that the other evidence i.e M.Os 1 to 19 and also the confessional statements before the 8 Police successfully able to substantiate the fact that the Accused persons has jointly participated in the decoity. 17. Learned Appellate Court in its Judgment at Paragraph No.8 has observed that though Charge Sheet is missing regarding term of “conjoint commission of an offence”, but it is the observation of the learned trial court the evidence on record clearly shows that the Accused person has acted conjointly and committed an offence. 18. In this particular case, let me understand the merit of the submissions of learned counsel for the Petitioners. It is the argument that the Police Authority has filed Charge Sheet being a stock case and put all the Accused persons in the same Charge Sheet under the offence of decoity. 19. It is the particular case of the Petitioners argued that there are no ingredients for conjoint commission of offence by all the Accused persons. 20. To substantiate the argument in this case, the defence has to prove that any of the Accused persons may have other antecedent or not connected with particular offence as alleged by the prosecution. I understand the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that the prosecution case has not clearly stated that which Accused person has committed which particular offence. The prosecution case has been duly supported by PWs 1 and 2 and also, PW-3 (Auto Driver). In the report of Test Identification Parade, except PW-5, all other Accused persons were identified. PW-2 as well as PW-1 has also narrated the presence of Accused persons in the said lorry. 9 There is no iota of doubt to understand that all the Accused persons were involved in the offence. Considering the findings of the learned Courts below, it appears to me proper and legal on the basis of attending facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the point raised by learned counsel for the Petitioners appears to me meritless. 21. In this particular case, it has been argued that Test Identification Parade was done, the recovery was made from all the Accused persons and after commission of offence all the Accused persons were apprehended after some days, such delay not appears to me inordinate in attending facts and circumstances of the case. 22. It is true that the rope and cloths by which the PWs 1 and 2 were bound and gagged was not seized during the course of investigation in this case. The lacunae in the prosecution case in not seizing those materials is not so fatal itself to doubt the entire prosecution case. Moreover, the evidence of doctor i.e PW-7 has specifically stated that the injury may be inflicted injury that indicated that the injury itself was caused by the Accused on PWs 1 and 2. No incident was reported to the Police regarding self inflicted injury. There is no reason for PWs 1 and 2 to assail themselves to implicate all the Accused persons in this case of decoity. Furthermore, it is not difficult to fit 8 Accused persons including PWs 1 and 2 in the cabin of a lorry, rather there are no such positive suggestions from defence to the Investigating Officer during trial. Under the above observation, after considering the findings of the learned 10 Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court I find no justification to entertain the Criminal Revision. 23. Accordingly, being meritless, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The Order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court, affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is appears justified. 24. Order suspension of sentence passed by this Court is hereby revoked. The Petitioners are directed to appear before learned Trial Court within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to serve out the remaining portion of the sentence, failing which, learned Trial Court is at liberty to issue Non Bailable Warrants against the Petitioners to comply the order of this Court. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Date: 20.11.2025 KK 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 781, 948, 985 AND 1026 OF 2007 Date: 20.11.2025 KK