STATE Vs. DALMA MARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from Garo Hills by 3 persons who have been convicted by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, under Section 395, I.P.C., and each sentenced to undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100 or, in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months. The learned Deputy Commissioner has also sent up the case of the appellants under RULE 16 of the Rules framed for the administration of justice in the Garo Hills District, for confirmation of their convictions and sentences.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on 2 -11 -1950, towards midnight, when one Subal Marak and members of his family were asleep in their house, 5 persons broke into the middle room of the house armed with lathis, spears, daos and pointed bamboos. On entering the room, they flashed torch lights upon the inmates of the house; some of them seized Subal Marak and severely assaulted him with a lathi, his wife, Matri Mechik, and her son, Gamansing Sangma, were also beaten: Gamansing managed to escape; the daughter of Subal Marak escaped unhurt; one Ruman Sangma was also attacked and injured by some of the intruders. After causing injuries to the inmates of the house of Subal Marak, the intruders disappeared, taking with them a small suitcase containing cash, some clothes, a fountain pen, and and torch light, together valued at Rs. 68 -12 -0.

(3.) MR . Lahiri who appears for the appellants, has frankly stated that he has not very much to say in favour of the appellants on the merits of their convictions. Indeed the evidence appears to be overwhelming. A large number of persons who were injured have implicated the 3 appellants. The First Information Report containable nmes of the appellants as the offenders. The injured persons are P.Ws. 2, 5 and 7. P.W. 6, Matri Mechik, wife of Subal Marak, is blind. P.Ws. 2, 5 and 7 have clearly stated that they recognised the three appellants that night. They knew them previously. The story of dacoity, as given by the prosecution witnesses, is corroborated; by the fact that the witnesses themselves received injuries. There is no justification for rejecting their testimony.