8/11/2019 That the Accused is Guilty of Committing the Offence of Dacoity (Autosaved)

1/2

1

1) That the accused Maj. Rana is guilty of committing the offence of dacoity.

That as per section 391 of I.P.C 1860, Dacoity is When five or more persons conjointly

commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly

committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such

commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or

aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".

That to constitute is crime the following ingredient needs to be fulfilled-

I) The accused commit or attempt to commit robbery;

II) Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons present and aiding

must not be less than five;

III) All such persons should act conjointly.

That Section 390 of the I.P.C defines robbery. Robbery in common language means to

deprive a person of his or her property .It is a special and aggravated from of either theft or

extortion. The chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent fear of

violence.

That in order to make an offence of theft a robbery there must be either theft and injury or

threat of injury while committing theft. Facts along with supportive statements of witness it is

well settled that on the night of 31stDecember, that four coaccused entered Monteceito and

committed theft by wrongfully taking Rupees 12 Cr. with them. To aid their escape they

wrongfully restrained Mr. Shekhar Subramaniyam thereby making him hostage and injured

him by hitting him several times. Thus it is hubbly submitted that acuused commit the

offence of robbery on the night of 31stDecember.

That accused committing or aiding robbery were not less than five and all accused acted

conjointly.

That as per the given facts on the night of 31st December four accused entered Monteceito

with dishonest intention to take Rupess 12 corer . One co- accused had made arrangement for

their escape and took a small motorboat near Monteceito

That as per the informant Ms. Shonali Gujral (PW 1) ,accused Maj. Rana was entrusted to

make list of guest which were allowed to enter Monteceito and suggested not to shift money

to main vault . Also as per the statement of Mr. Michael Barbosa , on the 31st night, accused

Maj. Rana was in charge of the security inside the Octavious. Accused Maj. Rana

8/11/2019 That the Accused is Guilty of Committing the Offence of Dacoity (Autosaved)

2/2

2

commissioned a special force comprised exclusively of men he picked. The guest list was

scrutinized and approved by accused Maj. Rana himself.

That as per the confession of PW 2 Bhaskar sanyal @ Sarkar, accused had approached Brij

Gopal @ Babaji (deceased) with the idea of robbing the Octavious vault on the 31st night as

he knew there would be a lot of money in the Octavious vault on that night. PW 2 also stated

that the dacoity was to a five man job, with accused providing support from the inside.

Accused Maj Rana ensured that PW 2 and other co-accused will be on the guest list, and

would have no problem entering the Monteceito.

That in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damuit was observed thatSection 10 of the

Evidence Act renders anything said, done, or written by any one of the conspirators in

reference to their common intention as a relevant fact, not only as against each of the

conspirators but for proving the existence of the conspiracy itself. Further the said fact can be

used for showing that a particular person was a party to the conspiracy.

That(State of Gujarat v. Mohd. Atik). Sectionit was obsereved that section 10 of Indianevidence acts 'anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their

common intention' to be recorded as a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to

have so conspired.

In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) Jagannatha Shetty, J.,has analysed the section as

follows: (SCC p. 734, para 278)"278. From an analysis of the section, it will be seen

that Section 10 is relevant not only for the purpose of proving the existence of conspiracy, but

also for proving that the otherperson was a party to it.

That Section 10 of the Evidence Act is based on the principle of agency operating between

the parties to the conspiracy inter se and it is an exception to the rule against hearsay

testimony. If the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the act done or statement made by

one is admissible against the co-conspirators (vide Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of

Maharashtra).

That the word co- jointly used in section 391 manifestly refers to the united or concerted

action of the person participating in the transaction . When their individual actions can beproperly be referred to a united or concerted action that a question of conviction arises.

Thus it is humbly submitted that accused Maj Rana aided the commission of crime of dacoity.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185644/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185644/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/923594/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/923594/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/923594/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/667073/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/923594/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185644/