TAHIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS and the connected Appeal No. 912 of 1965 arise out of a dacoity which was committed at 1. 30 A. M. on 5th August, 1964, at the house of one Balram in village Khilwara. Report about the occurrence (Ex. Ka-1) was made at police station Jansath by 5 A. M. by Balram, Five persons were prosecuted for having committed this dacoity, but two out of them, namely Chhota and Tufail, were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The three appellants Tahir, Khalil and Saghir were identified by several witnesses and were consequently Convicted and sentenced to seven years rigor-Bus imprisonment under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) TAHIR's case was that after his arrest, he was taken to police station Bhopa and shown to the witnesses there, that he was then brought to police station Jansath and even shown to the witnesses there and thereafter sent to the District Jail. Curiously enough, the prosecution did not examine the two constables, Sumatvir Singh and Ram Kishan, who arrested him on 29th August, 1964. According to the prosecution evidence he was arrested under Section 25 of the Arms Act and brought to police station Jansath at 6. 15 A. M. and it was then that he was put under cover and asked to remain covered. Even according to the prosecution case, therefore, he came upto police station Jansath with his face open, There, is no evidence as to when and where he was arrest ed and if, therefore, it is contended by Tahir that he was first taken to police station Bhopa and shown to the witnesses there, that statement goes practically unrebutted.

(3.) THE prosecution contention was that Tahir was arrested under Section 25 of the Arms Act and, therefore, it was not necessary to cover him immediately after his arrest. But even though Tahir was arrested under the Arms Act, if he was suspected of having taken part in a dacoity, all those precautions should have been taken which are normally taken in the case of the arrest of a suspect in a dacoity case. Head Constable, Harpal Singh has deposed that as soon as Tahir came to the police station he was covered. This means that the Jansath police knew at the time Tahir arrived at the police station that he was wanted in this dacoity case; and if Head Constable Harpal Singh knew this fact, the appellant is entitled to urge that even the two constables who arrested him must have known that fact. In any case, when Tahir was ultimately prosecuted for having committed the dacoity, Sumatvir Singh and Ram Kishan or at least one of them should have been examined so as to show when he was arrested, where he was kept after his arrest and if there was any chance of Tahir being shown to the witnesses either at Bhopa or on his way to Jansath. Information on this point has been purposely kept back by the prosecution and true facts have thus been suppressed.