Mere possession of weapons no proof of dacoity: Calcutta HC

Kolkata: Mere possession of weapons or gathering at an isolated spot is not enough to prove preparation for dacoity without evidence of intent, the Calcutta High Court has held, setting aside the convictions of five men in a case dating back to 2004.

The bench of Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) delivered the ruling while allowing two connected appeals arising from a case registered at Kalyani police station.

The court said the prosecution had failed to establish any overt act or common intention among the accused to commit dacoity and stressed that criminal liability cannot rest on conjecture. “Strong suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof,” the judge observed.

According to the prosecution, around 10:45 pm on January 22, 2004, police personnel received information that a group of men had assembled near the railway line at Bijoynagar, allegedly planning a dacoity at a nearby closed factory.

The next day, police lodged an FIR after arresting five men and seizing iron choppers, a sidkathi and iron rods from them.

A trial court on January 25, 2005, convicted the accused of preparation and assembly for dacoity and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment.

However, Justice Chatterjee found the prosecution’s case “riddled with inconsistencies and procedural lapses.”

Witnesses gave conflicting descriptions of the seized articles; the seizure list carried no identifying marks or seals; and neither the documents nor oral testimony established which weapon was recovered from which accused.

The sketch map of the spot omitted nearby houses later mentioned in depositions. One officer’s claim of using a torchlight was never recorded earlier, and another admitted he had not diarised the information that led to the arrests.

Significantly, the court noted that the men were found “gossiping” when police arrived and were not seen brandishing or using the weapons allegedly seized.

“Mere presence with offensive articles, without proof of intent or preparatory act, does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence,” the judgment said.

Finding that guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the trial court’s verdict and ordered the men’s acquittal.