RAM PAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of one and the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Kanpur. Appeal No. 1310 of 1952 which is a represented appeal and has been filed by three persons, viz. Rampal, Soney Lal and Misri Lal is against their conviction and sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment each under Sec. 395, I.P.C. whereas Appeal No. 57 of 1953 is from jail by five persons viz. Chhail Bihari, Bijai Bahadur, Ratipal, Jharwa and Sobhnath the first two of whom have been convicted and sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each and the remaining three to seven' years' rigorous imprisonment each under the aforesaid section.

(2.) It appears that an armed dacoity was committed on the night between the 4th and 5th August, 1951, at the house of one Sheo Ratan Mukhia of village Bachhaupur, P.S. Sachendi, district Kanpur. The report of the dacoity was made the next morning at 6.10 a.m. by Ram Das, nephew of Sheo Ratan, who lives at a distance of one house from that of Sheo Ratan at police station Sachendi which is at a distance of five miles from village Bachhaupur. It was mentioned in this report that the dacoity (sic) as committed by 13 or 14 persons whose names and addresses were no known and that the facts of the dacoits were seen in the light of the lantern, Dia and torches and they could be identified if they were seen. After the report the Station Officer of P.S. Sachendi went to the place occurrence and there a list of the looted property was handed over to him by Sheo Ratan. After the necessary investigation eleven persons were sent up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence was of the opinion that the case was not proved against three of them, namely, Chandra Bhushan, Lala and Thakur Din. He, therefore, gave them the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. He however, found that the case against the remaining eight accused was satisfactorily proved and he accordingly convicted them under Sec. 395, I.P.C. He sentenced two of them, viz Bijai Bahadur and Chhail Bihari to ten year's rigorus imprisonment because there was evidence on the record against them that they had taken part in other serious crimes. The remaining six persons, viz, Rampal, Soney Lal, Ratipal, Misri Lal, Jharwa Chamar and Sobhnath were each sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) It was not disputed before me on behalf of the Appellants that a dacoity had taken place at the house of Sheo Ratan on the night in question. The contention on behalf of the Appellants was that there was no satisfactory evidence on the record in proof of the fact that they had taken part in the dacoity. They all stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. None of the accused produced any evidence in defence.