SHAUKAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Shaukat against his conviction under Section 396 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the night between 26/27th October, 1972 a dacoity took place in the house of Dhakan (PW 1), resident of ullage Umarpurwa, hamlet of village Semaur, police station Pihani, district Hardoi. THE dacoits were armed with guns, spears and lathis. A lantern and a Dhibri were burning inside the house. Dhakan and his uncle (sic) however, managed to escape from the house after some time and raised an alarm. On hearing the same, a number of village people of this village and neighbouring Purwas including Mahrand (PW 6) and Paras Ram (PW 7) came there. One of them set fire to a heap of dried sugarcane leaves lying to the north-east of the house in question. That created enough light. THE dacoits had also torches. THE dacoity was committed for about half an hour. THE dacoits left the house of the victim with their booty but they were chased by the village people. During the course of the chase the inhabitants of the neighbouring village on the way also joined in the chase. During the chase one of the chasers Nathu gave a lathi blow to one of the dacoits who then fired at him with his gun and Nathu died on the spot. Near the grove of one Ambar in village Barahiyakhera about three miles from the house of Dhakan, there was an encounter between the village people and the dacoits. Two of the dacoits were caught and the rest ran away. One of the dacoits also died on the spot. THE other dacoit Munshi, however, was alive for some time. Before his death the names of their companions were also ascertained. THE village people also were said to have recognised Rashid, Babu and Rauf from amongst the other dacoits. Dhakan then went to the police station Pihani and lodged a report at 5.10 P.M. on 27-10-72 giving the names of the recognised dacoits and also those whose names were given by one of the caputred dacoits Munsi, including the appellant Shaukat.

(3.) THE learned II Adll. Sessions Judge Hardoi held that the participation of the three persons, who were said to have been recognised by the village people was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because there was enmity between them and the witnesses and only those witnesses who had some animus against them were examined. So he acquitted them.