CHANCHAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1956 & Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1956, arise out of the judgment of Shri J.K. Misra, Sessions Judge of Sambalpur who, after a joint trial of the two Appellants and three other persons under Sections 895, 397, 207147, 395109 and 396109 I.P.C., convicted the two Appellants under Section 825109 I.P.C. and acquitted the remaining three accused. He sentenced Appellant Charan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Appellant Chanchal Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that on 7th July 1954 a dacoity was committed in the house of one Krutartha Padhy (P.W. 42) in village Telitikra, P.S. Bheden and a large amount of cash and valuables were taken away by the dacoits. Some of the dacoits were armed with guns and pistols and Krutartha Padhy was injured in his chest by the firing of a pistol by one of the dacoits. The injury did not prove fatal. Krutartha Padhy sent a report (Ext. 15) to the Officer -in charge of Naikul Police Station (P. W. 48) who instituted a regular First Information Report on the 8th July 1954 and investigated the case. During Inspection of Krutartha Padhy's house, he found ample corroborative circumstances to show that a dacoity had been committed. Some empty cartridges and shots (pellets) were also seized from the house. None of the intimates could, however, identify any of the dacoits. Hence, for several months nothing could be done by the police. But in February 1955, however, two other dacoities (in Sasan, Attabira P.S.) were committed and in connection with those dacoities, Appellant Charan Singh was arrested on the 3rd February 1955 Appellant Chanchal Singh was arrested on the 12th February 1955. Baghel Singh who is the approver in the present case (P.W. 11) was also arrested on the 12th January 1955. On the confessional statements of these persons, the Investigation of the present dacoity case was reopened and a charge -sheet was submitted. Baghel Singh was granted pardon by the District Magistrate and as approver he has given a full a description of the circumstances leading to the commission of the dacoity in the house of Krutartha Padhy. The two Appellants Char an Singh and Chanchal Singh are Panjabi Sikhs who were residing respectively at Burta and Hirakud. The story as put forward by the approver Baghel Singh (who is also a Panjabi Sikh) is that these Sikhs were hired by one Benudhar Padhy, an agnate of Krutartha Padhy for the purpose of committing dacoity in the house of Kutartha Padhy with whom he was on terms of bitter enmity and that Benudhar Padhy went to the extent of promising a reward of Rs. 5,000/ - if the dacoits, while committing dacoity, would kill his arch -enemy Krutartha. It was also stated that one Lal Jhankar who is a distant relation of Benudhar was utilised by him to contact the Sikhs at Burla and Hirakud and to arrange for the commission of the dacoity. Benudhar further facilitated the commission of the crime by helping the approver and his associates to make a preliminary, reconnaissance of the house of Krutartha and its vicinity and also supplying them with a plan of that house and giving them full particulars about the places where Krutartha used to keep his cash. The dacoits first assembled at Appellant Char an Singh place and then went "in his car along the Sambalpur -Bargarh road upto Gudbhaga, and then taking the diversion on the Turns road they went to a place known as Nuabandh. The car was kept in a corner and Appellant Charan Singh remained in charge of the same. The remaining five (sic) is including the approver went to village 'Telitikra, committed dacoity and returned to Hirakud in the car. The booty was subsequently divided amongst the various participants.

(3.) THE appellate Charan Singh was running a hotel at Hirakud island during the relevant months. He was arrested by the police at Jharsuguda on the 3rd February 1955 as already stated above. He was produced before the Magistrate for the purpose of recording his confession on the 5th February 1955 at 2 P.M. The Magistrate (P.W. 2) gave him half an hour 's time for reflection and then, after giving him the usual caution recorded his confession. Though the period of reflection was rather short, the nature of the questions put to this Appellant and the answers given by him are, I think, sufficient to show that the confession was made voluntarily. Though the Appellant alleged police torture soon after his arrest, no question regarding the same was put to the Police Officer (P.W. 51) during cross -examination.