SERAJUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications for revision by 3 convicted persons, namely, (1) Serajuddin Ahmed, (in Cr. Revn. No. 100/51), and (2) Niron Dutta and (3) Sarubapu Lilaram (in Cr. Revn. No. 101/51), who were convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, U. A. D., under S. 395, I. P. C. at a trial held with the aid of a Jury, and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., confirmed their convictions and sentences. They have now same before us in revision.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that on the night of 17/6/1949, a dacoity took place in a house belonging to 3 brothers, viz., (1) Kanakeswar, (2) Chitra, and (3) Jurai, in the Thengal Mouza of Jorhat Subdivision, and cash, ornaments and other valuable articles of the value of nearly Rs. 20,000/- were stolen. On the night in question, the only inmates present in the house were Jurai, his nephew Sohindra. and their ploughman Bhebela. Jurai was awakened by the barking of dogs; he aroused Sohindra and Bhebela. Jurai flashed a torch-Light, but discovered nothing; Jurai and the 2 inmates then opened the door of the main house and as soon as Jurai flashed a torch, he saw a crowd of some 20 armed men inside the house. The intruders attacked Jurai and the 2 inmates. Jurai received injuries. The intruders obtained the keys from Jurai, opened the safe and boxes and removed cash and ornaments worth some Rs. 20000/-, and then disappeared. None of the intruders were identified as their faces were muffled. In due course, a First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station and, on completion of the investigation, the Police sent up these 3 persons along with 2 others for trial; the latter two were acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.

(3.) The only evidence upon which the prosecution relied for the purpose of a conviction was the retracted confessions of the accused Serajuddin and Sarubapu Lilaram. The learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the appeal before him, expressed the opinion that had it not been for the absence of misdirection in the summing up of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, he would have acquitted the appellants.