Prosecution Must Establish Dacoity was the First Intention for Conviction

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal, in Krishna Pal and others v. State (2026), allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the surviving accused in a 1981 case, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary nexus between the alleged dacoity and murder as required for a conviction under Section 396 IPC (Section 308 of BNS). 

What was the Background of Krishna Pal and others v. State (2026) Case? 

• The case arose from an incident on December 30, 1981, when Atar Singh was killed near a culvert in front of the village of Chehka. 
• According to the prosecution, deceased Atar Singh was travelling with his son, brother, and others after alighting from a bus when they encountered Accused Mahavira and around 12 armed persons, with whom Mahavira allegedly had previous enmity. 
• Mahavira allegedly challenged Atar Singh and immediately fired at him; Atar Singh, carrying his licensed SBBL gun, allegedly fired back, injuring two persons from Mahavira's group. 
• Further firing allegedly followed from Mahavira's side, resulting in Atar Singh sustaining firearm injuries, falling on the roadside, and subsequently dying. 
• The prosecution further alleged that Accused Chandrapal took away Atar Singh's gun and cartridge belt after the firing. 
• The FIR initially invoked Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 404 IPC against six named accused and 12 unknown armed persons; the trial court, however, convicted the accused under Section 396 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. 
• During the pendency of the appeal, Krishan Pal, Ram Lal, Munshi Singh and Chandrapal died and the appeals qua them abated, leaving the appeal to survive only in respect of Sattu, whose conviction was examined by the High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Ingredients of Section 396 IPC: 
  The Court examined whether the prosecution evidence established the ingredients of Section 396 IPC, which applies where one of five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in the course of committing that dacoity, and referred to Section 391 IPC, under which five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery constitute dacoity.
• On the Absence of a Prior Intention to Commit Dacoity: 
  The Court found that the prosecution's own version did not establish that the accused had gone to the spot with the intention of committing dacoity, since the parties had met all of a sudden and Mahavira had challenged Atar Singh because of pre-existing enmity, with the firing and death following from this sudden encounter and the taking of the gun and cartridge belt occurring only thereafter. 
• On the Missing Nexus Between Dacoity and Murder: 
  The Court held that the prosecution story was not consistent with a conviction under Section 396 IPC, since the provision contemplates five or more persons conjointly committing dacoity as the first act followed by murder in the course of that dacoity, whereas in the present case no such sequence, and no nexus between the act of committing dacoity and the murder, had been established. 
• On the Absence of Evidence of a Dacoit Gang: 
  The Court observed that the sides had met all of a sudden due to personal enmity between Atar Singh and Mahavira, and that no evidence had been brought on record to show that Mahavira headed a gang of dacoits that included the surviving appellant. 
• On Corroborating Circumstances: 
  The Court additionally found it relevant that despite the alleged firing by several persons, no other person from the informant's side was injured, and that no incriminating material had been recovered from the surviving appellant Sattu's possession or through any pointing-out memo. 
• The Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated November 2, 1982 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Court), Etah, and acquitted the surviving appellant of the charges. 

What is Section 308 of BNS? 

Section 308 BNS — Dacoity: 

• Sub-section (1) — Definition of Dacoity: 
  When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, together with persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, number five or more, every such person committing, attempting, or aiding is said to commit "dacoity." 
• Sub-section (2) — Punishment for Dacoity: 
  Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Sub-section (3) — Dacoity with Murder: 
  If any one of five or more persons who are conjointly committing dacoity commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Sub-section (4) — Preparation to Commit Dacoity: 
  Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Sub-section (5) — Assembly for the Purpose of Dacoity: 
  Whoever is one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Sub-section (6) — Belonging to a Gang of Dacoits: 
  Whoever belongs to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.