IMAN ALI KHAN ELA HORI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were tried upon charges under Sections 394 and 323, Penal Code, by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge sitting with a Jury. By a majority verdict of four to one the Jury found each of the appellants guilty of both the offences. The learned Judge accepted the said majority verdict in each case, convicted each of the appellants of the relative offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the offence under Section 394, Penal Code, but passed no separate sentence in respect of the offence under Section 323, Penal Code.

(2.) Iman Ali Khan is the appellant in Appeal No. 242 of 1954. The other two appellants filed a separate appeal, being Appeal No. 246 of 1954. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) The Prosecution case was that the appellants and one Bahadur 'alias' Lal Bahadur Sing committed robbery at the house of the complainant Dr. Atul Chandra Chatterji in village Dupsa, Police Station Kalna. The robbery took place shortly after midnight on 14th Chaitra, 1360 B. S., corresponding, to 29-3-1954. The house where the robbery took place consisted of two 'mud-walled huts, each hut having two rooms. In a room of one of the huts Dr. Chatterji had his dispensary while the other room was utilised by him and his wife as their bed room. At the material time, the other hut was occupied by Dr. Chatterji's daughter Sadhana and other members of the family. Two sons of Dr. Chatterji aged, respectively, 10 and 6 years were, on the day Of the robbery, away from the village. After the robbers entered the hut where the complainant and his wife were, appellant Ela Hari is said to have pushed the complainant down on the floor and got upon his breast and attempted to cut the complainant's wind-pipe. The complainant, an elderly man of 62 years, struggled with Ela Hari but did not escape being hurt. The complainant's wife Gayatri Debi rushed to his rescue and implored Ela Hari not to take her husband's life. Appellant Iman Ali and Hedayat Shaik dragged Gayatri Debi into her bed room which was the western room and there robbed her of her ornaments and caused her certain injuries. According to the complainant and his wife, they recognised the three appellants in the light of the hurricane lantern which was burning in the bed room. Hedayat Shaik is said to have put out the lantern at some stage and thereafter to have ransacked the room with the help of an electric torch. Hearing the cries of her parents, Sadhana who slept in the other hut came out of it and recognised Bahadur who was standing outside with a lathi in hand. Bahadur threatened her whereupon a relation of the complainant, Bidyut Barani by name, dragged Sadhana inside the hut and bolted its door. Bidyut Barani also recognised Bahadur who was an upcountry man in the employment of an influential villager called Nababjan Khan. Appellant Iman Ali is Nabab Jan's son. Ela Hari and Hedayat were residents, respectively, of Kharinan and Par Dupsa, two neighbouring villages. The robbers took away considerable properties including ornaments and cash. Shortly after they left, a number of villagers, roused and/ or attracted by the hue and cry which the complainant and the members of his family raised, turned up. Amongst them, a man, by name Monmatha Gorai, was the first to turn up. Monmatha Gorai too recognised Bahadur whereupon he shouted that Bahadur, the upcountry-man, had attacked the household of Dr. Chatterji. According to the Prosecution, the complainant and his wife reported to the neighbours who gathered there after the robbery that they had recognised the miscreants but were not willing to divulge their names. The complainant and his wife, however, mentioned to their daughter the names of the robbers. Both the complainant and his wife having been injured, it was not until early morning that the complainant was able to set off for the thana which was about 14 miles away. The journey to the thana was by a bullock cart and it was not until 9 a. m. that the first information report in the case was lodged. In the first information report the complainant mentioned the names of the present appellants and stated that he had not divulged to anybody the name of any of the robbers lest they should come to know of their recognition and abscond. After the investigation which followed this ejahar, the appellants as well as Lal Bahadur were committed to be tried.