Five named accused persons A, B, C, D and E are prosecuted for committing dacoity. The prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt the participation of A, B and C in the crime but fails to do the same about D and E: A, B and C are convicted while D and E are acquitted. Which one of the following is correct?

Solution (By Examveda Team)

Definition of Dacoity:
Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It states that when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, or when the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit robbery amounts to five or more, every person so committing, attempting, or aiding is said to commit dacoity.

Explanation of the Correct Answer:
The correct answer is Option C: Conviction of A, B, and C is good in law, because conviction of at least five persons for dacoity is not the legal requirement.

The requirement under Section 391 IPC is that at least five persons should participate in the act of dacoity. However, this requirement applies to the commission of the crime and not necessarily to the number of persons convicted. If the prosecution successfully proves that five or more persons were involved in the commission of the crime, but due to lack of evidence, some of them are acquitted, the remaining accused can still be convicted.

In this case, the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that A, B, and C participated in the crime, but it failed to prove the involvement of D and E. Even though only three persons are convicted, the crime committed was dacoity because it was originally carried out by five persons. The conviction of A, B, and C is valid in law as it is not necessary that five persons must be convicted; what matters is that five persons participated in the act.

Explanation of Other Options:
Option A: Conviction of A, B, and C is good in law as there were five participants in all in the crime.
This option is misleading because the conviction does not depend on proving the involvement of five persons beyond doubt but rather on proving that five persons participated in the crime. Since two accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence, this justification is incorrect.

Option B: Conviction of A, B, and C is bad in law as for dacoity a minimum of five persons are required.
This option is incorrect because the law requires at least five persons to participate in the commission of dacoity, but it does not mandate that all five must be convicted. If some accused are acquitted due to lack of evidence, it does not invalidate the conviction of others.

Option D: Conviction of A, B, and C is bad in law as in case of named accused, less than five persons cannot be convicted for dacoity.
This option is incorrect because the number of convicted persons is not a determining factor for dacoity. What matters is that at least five persons were involved in the commission of the crime. The acquittal of some accused due to lack of evidence does not affect the conviction of others whose participation was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, Option C is the correct answer.