Libertatem Magazine

SC Allows Acquittal Of the Appellant In the Case of Robbery and Criminal Conspiracy

Contents of this Page

The Division Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kisan Kaul of the Supreme Court heard the present case. The Court, acquitted the appellant on the ground of benefit of the doubt. The Court said the Appellant was innocent. That, he did not commit an offense punishable under Section 394, 397, and 460 of the Indian Penal Code.

Brief facts of the Case 

The complainant, on 08.09.2008 went to his father’s house and found him dead. Two days later he filed the FIR. Police conducted the primary investigation. They charged the appellant and three others for robbery and trespassing on the deceased’s property. The appellant was additionally charged with section 397 of the IPC. Two of the accused persons were familiar with the deceased. Additionally, police seized lots of valuables from the accused persons which proved the theft. The Trial Court found the accused persons guilty of the said offense. The offenders were also found guilty under Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhiniyam. The High Court also convicted the accused persons.


The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons. They committed theft in the house of the deceased. Police even found the looted goods and the weapon used to kill the deceased. They also proved beyond doubt that the accused persons were guilty of the said offense. One of the prosecution witnesses also overheard the conspiracy plot to loot the deceased’s house. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the medical evidence was wrong. They contended that one of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable. The prosecution witnesses knew the other three accused persons. Thus, they submitted that the appellant was being convicted without any evidence.

Court’s ruling

The three main conditions on which the High Court decided on, did not comply with the appellant’s activities. They noticed that an important prosecution witness did not mention the appellant’s name. In view of the above reasoning, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Also, they considered it not safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant. The appellant got the benefit of the doubt. The Court thus set aside the impugned judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author