DAULAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of 26 persons prosecuted for committing dacoity and murder of two persons- an old lady and young child only appellant Daulat Singh could be apprehended and was prosecuted. He has since been convicted under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge being proved.

(2.) The incident is dated 16/4/1981 and was committed in broad day light at about between 1 a.m. to 2 p.m. in village Bankhiriya in the house of Karan Singh (P.W. 1) The prosecution proved through number of witnesses that the dacoity took place in Karan Singh's house and that during the course of dacoity one Gulabrani, an old lady, mother of Karan Singh and one child named Pappu, aged about 2 years were killed on receiving gun shot injuries. It has also been established by the evidence of Surat Singh (P.W. 3) when his wife Gulabrani tried to escape with a jewellery box, dacoits seized it from her and to get away. The medical evidence which went absolutely unquestioned in the case proved beyond doubt that not only the two deceased died as a consequence of gun-shot injuries but that Karan Singh also received like injuries.

(3.) Report of the incident was made immediately. During investigation certain articles from the spot were seized. All this evidence has not been doubted at all in the lower Court inasmuch as the witnesses deposing were not examined and therefore, we have little to interfere with the finding of the lower Court that the dacoity as alleged took place in the house of Karan Singh (P.W. 1) and that during the course of that dacoity jewellery was looted and two persons were killed, The evidence of Karan Singh (P.W. 1) and Surat Singh (P.W. 3) also proves that the miscreants were about 26 persons in number. The question, however is whether the appellant was amongst those group of assailants. This fact has been duly proved by the testimony of Karan Singh (P.W. 1) who has deposed that when the gunshot was fired at him, the appellant Daulat Singh was with the man who shot. Daulat Singh had also a gun in his hand. When Daulat Singh was arrested by the police, he was put up for identification vide memo Ex. P-2. This test identification was conducted by Shri B.L. Mishra (P. W. 7). Jalam Singh (P.W. 2) also identified the appellant during that identification parade. The cross-examination Station of all these three witnesses i.e. Karan Singh (P.W.1), Jalam Singh (P.W. 2) and B.L. Mishra (P.W. 7), in our opinion, is sufficient to hold that Karan Singh unmistakably could know the presence of appellant Daulat Singh among that group of dacoits. Nothing important worth mentioning is found in the cross-examination of these three witnesses on this point. Besides putting a few questions as to the pre-cautions during the test-identification parade by B.L. Mishra (P.W. 7). We do not find anything more in that cross-examination. Shri Mishra has clearly deposed that he has taken all precautions and mentioned them in the identification Memo Ex. P-2. Defence could not point out any material from the record which may prompt us to discard this test identification. Karan Singh (P.W. 1), Jalam Singh (P.W.2) both identified the appellant in the court during their evidence. That being so, we uphold the finding of the lower court that the appellant was among the group of dacoits.