STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BASSAPPA CHALAPPA BEKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State of Bombay against an order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1954 by the Extra Additional Ses-sions Judge, Belgaum. The case was tried before the learned Sessions Judge with the aid of a Jury of five. The Jury brought in a majority verdict of 4 to 1 in favour of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge held that the verdict could not be regarded as perverse or unreasonable. He, therefore, accepted the verdict of the Jury and acquitted all the accused. The State had preferred an appeal against an the accused. When the appeal was placed for admission before this Court the appeal was admitted as against accused 1, 2 and 9 and was dismissed as against the remaining accused. We have, therefore, before us the appeal against accused 1, 9 and 9 only.

(2.) Now, the case for the prosecution was that one Ramchandra Satwappa Wajantri had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of gold of considerable value. The quantity of gold entrusted to him was 100 gold bars or ingots each weighing 10 tolas, and Ramchandra had disposed of some of the bars of gold. It was the case for the prosecution that some of the remaining bars and Rs. 10,000/- were by show of force and threats taken away from Ramchandra by the accused. As stated in the charge, accused 1 to 9 had between 12th February and 13th February 1954, extorted 53 gold bars each weighing 10 tolas and a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-from Ramchandra and his brother Laxman and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. Accused 1 to 9 were further charged that in furtherance of their common intention to commit the dacoity they had wrongfuly confined the complainant Ramchandra when they compelled him to accompany them from his house at Dan-deli on 12-21954, to Chandgad and back to Dande-li on 13-2-1954, and had, therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 342, Penal Code.

(3.) The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses in support of its case. The evidence led by the prosecution may be divided into three principal sections. The first section of the evidence related to the commission of the offence of smuggling gold bars by Ramchandra. Substantially that evidence was led for the purpose of proving that Ramchandra was at the relevant time possessed of 100 bars of gold. The second section of the evidence related to the circumstances in which Ramchandra was put in fear of injury and deprived of the 53 bars of gold which he possessed and of the cash amount of Rs. 10,000/- which he had received by disposal of some of the gold bars. This evidence also was intended to show that on 12th and 13th February 1954, Ramchandra had been wrongfully detained. The third s'ection of the evidence related to the disposal of property of considerable value by the accused at diverse times. The evidence was that gold had been disposed of by the aceused to various witnesses or that they had got ornaments prepared out of gold from various witnesses. The accused denied having committed the offences charged against them and they sst up title to various ornaments which were found from their possession.