5 min readNew DelhiJun 25, 2026 08:00 AM IST
First published on: Jun 25, 2026 at 08:00 AM IST
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of two men for a 1984 armed robbery in which villagers apprehended them at the spot; however, considering their age, lack of criminal history, and the 39-year delay in appeal disposal, the court released them on probation and directed payment of Rs 75,000 compensation to the victims.
Dealing with a plea of the accused against the conviction order, Justice Santosh Rai noted that the criminal appeal has been pending since 1986, and admittedly, the appellants have lived under the shadow of conviction for four decades; presently, the age of the appellants is more than 60 years.
“Appellants are the first offenders and old-aged persons. Accused appellants Dhunna and Sheo Bhushan are not habitual offenders, considering the fact that this criminal appeal has been pending since 1986 (about 39 years),” the court said on June 23.
Justice Rai added that the prosecution has not submitted any relevant record that the appellants have any previous criminal history/antecedents, which fact has also been admitted by the additional government advocate, and the maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Justice Santosh Rai noted that appellants have lived under the shadow of conviction for four decades, and presently, the appellants are more than 60 years old. (Image enhanced using AI)
Armed robbery case of 1984
The plea filed by the accused Dhunna, Maiyadin, and Sheo Bhushan, challenging the judgment and order dated September 18, 1986, passed by the additional sessions judge, Fatehpur, where the accused were convicted under Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) read with Section 397 (robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
One of the accused, Sheo Bhushan, was further convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The accused, Maiyadin, died during the pendency of this appeal.
The prosecution’s case is that during the intervening night of 23/24 December, 1984, in village Qazi Ka Purwa within the jurisdiction of Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur, the complainant Chittan was lying outside his house in the chaupal, while the remaining members of his family were inside the house.
At around midnight, four unknown persons allegedly arrived at the spot. Out of them, three assaulted the complainant and compelled him to open the main door of his house from inside. One of the accused, who was armed with a gun, climbed onto the roof of the complainant’s house.
Since the main entrance could not initially be opened, the assailants allegedly attempted to break it open, due to which the complainant’s wife and daughter raised an alarm and eventually opened the gate. Thereafter, the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant’s wife and daughter as well.
Caught at midnight
On hearing the commotion from inside and outside the complainant’s house, other villagers armed with lathis and torches reached the place of occurrence and raised an alarm. It was alleged that the accused were carrying guns, country-made pistols, axes, and torches, and after committing robbery in the complainant’s house, the accused persons attempted to flee from the scene.
But the villagers succeeded in apprehending three of the accused, who disclosed their names as Dhunna, Maiyadin, and Sheo Bhushan, while their fourth associate, armed with a gun, managed to escape. Several villagers also sustained injuries during the incident.
‘Accused are senior citizens’
Appearing for the accused, advocate Manvendra Singh and R B Sahai submitted that the accused appellants have not committed robbery and have been falsely implicated in this case.
They further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; therefore, the appellants have been acquitted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. It was pleaded that the accused appellants are senior citizens and presently they are more than 60 years old, and since this criminal appeal has been pending since 1986, they may be released on probation.
They were committing robbery: Order
- In the first information report, the fact has been clearly mentioned that four miscreants reached the chaupal of the informant, and they had pressured him to open the door to commit robbery.
- They have a firearm, gun, countrymade pistol, axe and torch. They also caused injury to the informant and others, but during the course of committing robbery, the villagers arrived on the spot.
- Important and broad facts regarding cognizable offences of committing robbery and causing injuries, etc., have been clearly mentioned in the Tehrir and FIR.
- Recovery has been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses during the course of the trial.
- Role and involvement of the accused appellants transpires that they were committing robbery in furtherance of a common intention among them.
- IPC provides that when an offender commits robbery or commits it voluntarily causes harm, it covers all the persons who were actually hurt and though principle of common intention, those who participate in the robbery will be held liable.
Allahabad High Court was dealing with a plea of two accused challenging their conviction in 1984 robbery case. (AI-generated Image) 
Justice Santosh Rai noted that appellants have lived under the shadow of conviction for four decades, and presently, the appellants are more than 60 years old. (Image enhanced using AI)
Share
