Ram Lakhan Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1976|
|Judge|| O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1983SC352; 1983CriLJ691; 1983(1)SCALE100; (1983)2SCC65|
|Acts||Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 395|
|Respondent||State of U.P.|
.....(a) clause (e) of section 8 of the cofeposa act in express terms disentities a detenu to appeal through a legal practitioner in any matter connected with the reference to the advisory board. it is now well settled that the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of one's choice conferred by a article 22(1) is denied by clause 3(b) to a person who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention. according to the express intendment of the constitution itself no person who is detained under any law which provides for preventive detention can claim the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice or be defended by him. therefore it cannot be said that a detenu has the right of being represented by a legal practitioner in the proceedings before..........kurmi, 3. rambodh kurmi, 4. ram noker kurmi, 5. sampuran kurmi, 6. rambachan kurmi, 7. ram lakhan kurmi, 8. ram ujagir kurmi and 9. ram pyare kurmi have participated in the dacoity which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other property were looted away. the trial court had acquitted 5 persons and convicted 4. but on appeal the high court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted ram lakhan the present appellant. the position now is that out of 9 persons named in the fir who are alleged to have participated in the dacoity ram lakhan is alone left. before an offence under section 395 can be made out there must be an assembly of 5 or more persons. on the findings of the courts below it is manifest that only one person is now.....
1. In this appeal the appellant has been convicted under Section 395 and sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. In our opinion this appeal must succeed on a short point. It appears from the FIR that only 9 persons viz. 1. Ramroop Kurmi, 2. Ramdhoop Kurmi, 3. Rambodh Kurmi, 4. Ram Noker Kurmi, 5. Sampuran Kurmi, 6. Rambachan Kurmi, 7. Ram Lakhan Kurmi, 8. Ram Ujagir Kurmi and 9. Ram Pyare Kurmi have participated in the dacoity which is alleged to have been committed in the course of which ornaments, grains and other property were looted away. The trial court had acquitted 5 persons and convicted 4. But on appeal the High Court acquitted the remaining three persons and convicted Ram Lakhan the present appellant. The position now is that out of 9 persons named in the FIR who are alleged to have participated in the dacoity Ram Lakhan is alone left. Before an offence under Section 395 can be made out there must be an assembly of 5 or more persons. On the findings of the courts below it is manifest that only one person is now left. In these circumstances therefore the appellant cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 395. The High Court has not found that Ram Lakhan was guilty of any overt act so as to bring his case within any other minor offence. For these reasons therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of offence charged under Section 395. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.