43 years on, Allahabad High Court acquits 3 in Badaun dacoity case after finding trial judge’s logic ‘not appealing to conscience’

The night of ‘crime’

• The case dates back to the intervening night of July 26 and 27, 1982, when a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at Ujhani police station alleging that a group of armed men committed dacoity at the residence of one Dhanpal in Adwalganj village, Badaun district.
• According to the written complaint, Dhanpal and his brother were sleeping in a cattleshed when they heard screams from inside the house.
• On rushing there with villagers carrying torches, they allegedly found several men assaulting the informant’s mother and sisters and looting cash and ornaments.
• The FIR claimed that two shots were fired by the alleged dacoits.
• Three shots were fired in retaliation by a villager, Ganga Ram, from his licensed gun.
• Cash worth Rs 3,000 was looted.
• Multiple silver ornaments and clothes were taken.
• The assailants fled towards the south.
• The prosecution named seven persons from the same village.

Trial court conviction in 1983

• On August 29, 1983, the Badaun special sessions judge convicted Ali Hasan, Narain, and Nandey under section 395 (dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The court also convicted Omkar, Harpal, Latoori, and Mehndi under IPC sections 395 read with 397 (dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt).
• They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ranging from five to seven years.
• The accused challenged the conviction before the high court in 1983 itself.
• During the pendency of the appeal, four appellants died and proceedings against them were abated in 2019.
• The high court’s final verdict concerned the three surviving appellants- Ali Hasan, Harpal and Latoori.
• The appeal was allowed, and records were directed to be returned to the trial court.

High court: Material inconsistencies

• The surviving appellants cannot be held guilty of the 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, giving benefit of doubt, as the trial court has incorrectly adduced evidence.
• The appellate court should not shy away in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused.
• The trial court, at the very start of judgment, has made the observation that the factum of dacoity is not a subject of any controversy.
• This observation has been made because according to the trial judge, the factum of dacoity has not been challenged by the accused.
• This observation of the trial judge is against the basic principles of law of appreciation of evidence.
• The accused-appellants at the very start of the trial have denied the allegations of committing dacoity in the house of the informant, one Dhanpal.
• They have stated false implication because of party politics and previous enmity between them.
• Therefore, it is the first and foremost duty of the trial court to look into the evidence as to where the incident of dacoity took place in the house of the informant.
• If the statement of all witnesses of fact is taken into consideration, then the points which are culled out from their statements are material inconsistencies.
• The accused-appellants are of the same village and they are known to the informant and witnesses.
• Most of them are labourers and were inimical to the informant, because of recent pradhan election or the previous complaint or because of land deal.
• It is hard to believe that the accused, who are having their families in the village, will enter the house of any person of the village barefaced to commit dacoity.
• Moreover, despite the arrest of the accused, there was no recovery of any item of dacoity.
• The investigating officer has collected only a torch from the witnesses and returned it to them on the same day.
• The recovery of the torch is not sufficient evidence that the witnesses have identified the dacoits.

Conflicting versions about number of dacoits

• While the First Information Report (FIR) named seven people, the informant stated in court that 10 to 11 dacoits had entered his house.
• Another witness said there were seven. Such inconsistencies, the court noted, cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative.

Gunfire allegation never verified

• The prosecution’s case hinged partly on the allegation that five gunshots were fired, two by the assailants and three by Ganga Ram.
• However, no empty cartridges were recovered or pellets seized.
• Ganga Ram’s licensed firearm was not examined.
• The court observed that verification of the gunfire claim was crucial to test the truthfulness of the incident itself.

Medical evidence did not match testimony

• One injured witness claimed she suffered knife injuries.
• Yet the medical report recorded injuries caused by hard and blunt objects, not sharp weapons.
• Moreover, the medical reports were not formally proved during trial.
• This discrepancy weakened the prosecution’s version regarding the weapons allegedly used.

No recovery of looted property

• Despite specific claims that cash and nine valuable items were looted, none of the alleged stolen property was recovered from any accused.
• The court treated this as a significant gap in the investigation.
• The court remarked that it appeared improbable that villagers with no prior criminal history would commit dacoity “bare-faced” in their own village.

Conviction set aside after 43 years

• The high court set aside the 1983 conviction and acquitted Ali Hasan under IPC Section 395.
• The court also acquitted Harpal and Latoori under IPC sections 395/397.