Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Robbery and Dacoity Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment modifying the conviction of two accused, Ganesan and Shanmugam @ Babu, in a case involving robbery and dacoity. The case, which originated in Tamil Nadu, involved the conviction of multiple accused under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prescribes a minimum of seven years of imprisonment for robbery or dacoity committed with the use of a deadly weapon.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to an incident on August 19, 1996, when five accused were alleged to have committed a robbery in Panruti, Tamil Nadu. As per the prosecution, the accused conspired to rob the victim, Duraisamy, using deadly weapons such as knives and iron rods. During the robbery, the victim and another person, Palanivel, were assaulted, and a bag containing cash and jewelry was stolen.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-criminal-investigation-in-jammu-kashmir-corruption-case/

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 395 (dacoity) and 397 (robbery with a deadly weapon) of the IPC. However, two accused absconded, leading to separate trials. The trial court convicted Ganesan and Shanmugam under Section 397 IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants, Ganesan and Shanmugam, challenged their conviction on the following grounds:

• The prosecution failed to establish their presence at the crime scene.
• The FIR was suspicious due to discrepancies in the statements of witnesses.
• No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish their identity.
• They did not use any deadly weapon, which is a necessary requirement under Section 397 IPC.
• One of the co-accused, Benny, was later acquitted, and they should be given the benefit of doubt.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Tamil Nadu, representing the prosecution, argued that:

• There were concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court.
• PW1 (victim) and PW2 (eyewitness) provided credible testimony proving the involvement of the accused.
• Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case.
• Even though the accused did not use a weapon, they actively participated in the crime.
• The offense met the definition of dacoity under Section 395 IPC.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused but modified the charges from Section 397 IPC to Section 395 IPC (dacoity). The Court reasoned that:

• Under Section 397 IPC, only the offender who actually uses a deadly weapon can be convicted.
• In this case, the prosecution did not prove that Ganesan and Shanmugam used deadly weapons.
• However, the crime still amounted to dacoity as it involved more than five persons acting together.

The Court cited the judgments in Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797 and Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641 to support its interpretation of Section 397 IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC but convicting the accused under Section 395 IPC. The sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment remained unchanged, ensuring that justice was served while aligning the conviction with the proper legal provisions.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-reinstates-investigation-in-suicide-abetment-case-against-karnataka-official/

Petitioner Name: Ganesan, Shanmugam @ Babu.
Respondent Name: State Rep. by Station House Officer.
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice M. R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Panruti, Tamil Nadu.
Judgment Date: 29-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: ganesan,-shanmugam-@-vs-state-rep.-by-statio-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-10-2021.pdf