RABI DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 16 of 1974 is by 12 appellants while Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1974 is by a sole appellant. These appellants along with several others were committed to the Court of Session on a charge punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, the sole appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1974 absconded and was not available for the rest of the trial. His case was, therefore, split up. By judgement dated 8.12.1973, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1974 - appellants 1 to 7, 11 and 12 under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and while appellant No. 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, the remaining appellants convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each; appellants 8 to 10 were convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1974, by a separate judgement dated 29.1.1974, was convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and given a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. As there was virtually one trial and essentially the judgements are one, the two appeals were heard together and this common judgement shall dispose of both the appeals.

(2.) MALLA Biswanath was a resident of village Haradamara situated in the hilly tracts of Jarada Police Station on the Orissa -Andhra border and had taken to the professional occupation of Kumutis - running a shop of groceries and general merchandise within the village. He too was operating as a money -lender and advancing also loans of foodgrains to the Adivasi community of the locality. On 7.4.1971, during the day time he and his wife had gone out to the house of one of their married daughters in the neighbourhood. The inmates of his house were his wife, he himself, his only son (P.W. 12) who happened to be unfortunately a congenital cripple by both the legs, the latter's wife Kumari and his married sister (P.W. 20) who had come to her father's house for delivery and had already delivered a child a few months before the occurrence. The front room of the house was utilised both as a shop -cum -living room. In an ante room lay the iron -safe and other valuables and in yet another the deceased himself used to sleep. In the evening of that day, P.W. 12 had gone to sleep after dinner. In the front room slept the two ladies; a lantern was kept burning and the front door opening to the village street had been bolted from inside.

(3.) PROSECUTION mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W. 10, a co -villager, P.W. 12, the son of the deceased and the approver (P.W. 23) for proof of the case. These three witnesses have been believed by the trial court. Apart from their testimony, reliance had been placed on circumstantial evidence; evidence leading to discovery of stolen properties and other features which have lent assurance of truth to the prosecution case.