JAILA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dacoity was committed at the house of Harchand Singh and Sher Singh of village Chupka in the halqa of Malerkotla Police Station (Barnala District), on the night of 20 -4 -2006 (5/8/ 1949). The matter was reported to the Police by Harchand Singh within half an hour of the occurrence. The culprits remained untraced for sometime but four persons were arrested later on, viz., Jaila alias Jarnail Singh, Amar Singh, Achhal Singh and Jagan Singh. The last -named person was acquitted by the trial Magistrate and the remaining three were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine. On appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence of Achhal Singh. Jaila and Amar Singh whose appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge have now preferred a revision petition to this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution story was that the culprits were five in number and that they went to the house of Harchand Singh and Sher Singh between 2 and 9 in the evening; one was carrying a gandasi, the other a kirpan, the third a dang and the remaining two were armed with rifles. One of Harchand Singh's neighbour when he saw the dacoits proceeding to his house shouted 'to him that his guests were arriving and he had better take care of his dog. On this Harchand Singh came out and was attacked by one of the dacoits with a gandasi. The blow, however, missed him and he made good his escape. Sher Singh who was in the house when the dacoits arrived was also able to escape. One of the dacoits went up the roof of the house, evidently in order to keep a watch and three of them went inside and robbed the women -folk of jewellery. They also took away some clothes.

(3.) THE second kind of evidence relates to the alleged recovery of a Patri from the possession of Jaila and a watch from that of Amar Singh. Both these articles were identified by Harchand Singh and other witnesses as belonging to them. The petitioners' counsel made an effort to show that the recoveries were doubtful and the Courts below were wrong in holding that they were in the possession of the petitioners. I do not consider it necessary to deal with this point, because in my opinion the prosecution has not been able to prove by legal evidence that the Patri and the watch were part of the property taken away by the dacoits from Harchand Singh's house. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the State upon two lists, one is exhibited as P/J and other does not bear any exhibit mark which according to the evidence of A.S.I., Ram Chand were prepared, one at the instance of Harchand Singh and the other at that of Sher Singh. On going through the evidence I am satisfied that both these lists were prepared after A.S.I., Ram Chand had sent the ruqqa to the police station for the registration of the case and during the course of investigation and in the view that I take I hold that they were hit by the provisions of Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, and could not be admitted in evidence.