GORAKH NATH AND ORS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the three appellants Baijnath has been convicted of offences under Sections 380 and 414, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under each. The other two appellants, Gorakh Nath and Sarju Singh have been convicted of offences under Section 414 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, and all the three appellants have also been convicted under Section 120-B, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under this section as well. The sentences are all concurrent.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that Baijnath stole a package of Rs. 1,800 in Government currency notes from the safe of one Sat Narain, who is the local agent at Bindki, Fatehpur District, far the firm of Ramjiawan Munni Lal of Calcutta. The notes were missed soon after they were taken, and Baijnath, on whom suspicion fell, made two confessions in the presence of some witnesses, but retracted them. He afterwards dug up the notes from a field and gave some of them to Gorakh Nath, the appellant, and some to Babu Lal a witness, who says that he handed them over to Sarju Singh, appellant. Such in a very brief form is the story of the offence which has been held to be proved by the Sessions Judge. The evidence is however complicated, and the judgment, though very full, contains a good deal of unnecessary matter. The case for the prosecution falls naturally into two parts : firstly, the circumstances relating to the theft of the notes and the way in which suspicion fell on Baijnath and secondly, the production of the notes by Baijnath in the presence of Gorakh Nath and Babu Lal, who is said to have handed them over to Sarju Singh. The first part is supported by the statements of witnesses who appear to have been reliable and whose evidence has not been shaken in cross-examination. The second part largely rests on the evidence of Babu Lal, who as I shall show, must be regarded practically as an accomplice, so that his evidence has to be scrutinised extremely carefully in every detail and corrborated in such a way as to prove not only that the offences were committed, but that each of the present appellants took part in them or some of them.

(3.) Sat Narain, who is really the complainant made a statement to the following effect. On 8th January 1934, about 7 or 8 p.m., he put notes to the value of Rs. 1,840 in his iron safe. Of course Rs. 1,800 were done up in one bundle. When he put the notes away Raja Ram his "munib," Baijnath the appellant and Deokumar Chaubey were present. Deokumar, like Baijnath had come to Bindki on business and had been staying at Sat Narain s shop for about two months. The iron safe itself was shut by a padlock which has a single lock. There is however an inner lock to the safe, and the key of this was put in a separate box, and this box was also locked. The key of the padlock of the safe and that of the wooden box were tied to the "janeo" which Sat Narain was wearing, and this he explains was his ordinary practice. After locking the money away Sat Narain went to sleep on what is called the "gaddi" of his shop and Baijnath and Deokumar also went to sleep there. Next morning Sat Narain and Beokumar went to the bazar leaving Baijnath alone in the shop. At about 3 p.m., Sat Narain returned; and as he wanted to get money out of the safe, he searched for his keys, but found that they had disappeared from Iris "janeo." He ordered a search and attended to other business. He evidently at first did not suspect that anything had been taken out of the safe. At about 8 p.m., however he sent for a "mistri" to break it open and then he found that the bundle con-containing Rs. 1,800 in notes had disappeared, whereas all the other money; and valuables in the safe remained intact. Baijnath was present when the safe was broken open. On realising his loss Sat Narain consulted Sheobalak, a military pensioner, who lives on the premises and appears to be a man of character and respectability. Sheobalak took up the inquiry, and after he with Sat Narain, Deokumar, Baijnath and Raja Ram Munib had gone to the upper story he pointed out that the money must have been taken by someone in the shop, and recommended whoever had taken to return it, otherwise there would be trouble with the police. Sheobalak appears to have suspected Baijnath, who at first denied liaving taken the notes, so that the others left him on the upper story with Raja Ram "munib" for a tune. Presently Raja Ram called Sheobalak back. From this stage the story is taken up by Sheobalak. He says that he went back to the shop, when Baijnath fell at his feet and confessed that he had made a great mistake and promised to hand over the notes to Sheobalak, but implored him not to go to the police. In answer to an inquiry he further confessed that he had put the notes in the shop of Jaidayal Madangopal. Raja Ram, the "munib," it should be mentioned, was present when Baijnath made his confession, and went along with the other two. When they arrived at the "kothri" outside the gate of Jaidayal Madangopal they found that Sarju Singh, the appellant, and Babu Lal were taking food inside. They appeared to be surprised, but both came out to meet the visitors and then all went in together. Sheobalak told Sarju Singh and Babu Lal what had happened, and Baijnath caught Sarju Singh by the hand and took him aside and said something to him which the others could not overhear. Sarju Singh, however told Baijnath to give back the notes if he had taken them.