Ganesan v. State rep. by Station House Officer
Background
Five men were accused of jointly committing an armed robbery in 1996; two of the original five absconded for years, so the remaining three were tried first, with the trial court and High Court convicting two of them (the present appellants) under Section 397 IPC for robbery while using a deadly weapon. One of the absconding co-accused, caught and tried 15 years later in a separate split trial, was ultimately acquitted because a key witness turned hostile in that later trial. The two convicted appellants argued this later acquittal should extend to them too, and separately argued that because fewer than five persons were actually tried together, the dacoity-related charge could not stand.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an offence qualifies as dacoity (Section 391, punishable under Section 395) based on whether five or more persons jointly committed or attempted the robbery, not on how many of them were actually tried together: concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court had established five persons were involved. It also held that the subsequent acquittal of the co-accused tried separately did not automatically benefit these appellants, since that acquittal turned on a witness turning hostile in the later trial, whereas 15 witnesses, including the key witness, had supported the prosecution in the appellants' own trial. However, the Court set aside their conviction under Section 397 IPC (which requires proof the convicted person himself used the weapon) and instead convicted them under Section 391 IPC punishable under Section 395 IPC, sentencing them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.
Lesson Learnt
When several people are jointly accused but tried separately due to some absconding, an acquittal obtained by a co-accused in their own later, separate trial does not automatically extend to others already convicted on different evidence in an earlier trial.