BODHIA CHAMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are four appellants in this appeal who have been convicted under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Hazaribagh. The appellants have filed the appeal from jail and we have heard Shri Sanat Kumar Chattopadhya as amicus curiae.

(2.) IN substance, the appellants have been convicted for an occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between the 16th and 17thof October. 1965 when one Singrai Manjhi of village Pandana within police station Gandey in the district of Hazaribagh was killed in course of a dacoity. The first information report was lodged at the Police Station by Lakhiram Manjhi P. W. 4 the brother of the deceased, at about 1 P. m. on the 17th October. IN the first information report, three out of the four appellants had been specifically named; that is to say appellant Horila Chamar had not been named therein. Two other persons namely Tulsi Chamar and the person described as son of Tulsi Chamar had also been mentioned in the first information report but they were not put upon trial. At the stage of commitment there were six accused persons including the four appellants, and the other two were named Niroo Rana and Ghanshyam Rana. These two persons had also been committed to the Court of Session for taking trial under Section 396 of the INdian Penal Code but they died after the commitment proceedings. It may be stated at this stage that the accused persons denied their complicity in the alleged crime and they stated before the learned trial Judge that they had been falsely implicated.

(3.) THE questions which arise for decision are whether it has been proved that a dacoity has been committed in the house of Singrai Manjhi in the night between the 16th and 17th of October 1965 and whether the appellants had taken part or not. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged although some what faintly that the prosecution case that a dacoity had been committed in the house of Singrai Manjhi has not been fully established. It is difficult to accept this contention as there is sufficient evidence on record for a conclusion that an occurrence must have taken place as alleged by the prosecution, in the night in question in which Singrai Manihi had been done to death. According to Lakhiram P. W. 4, when he had reached the house of Singrai Man.ihi the house was in a state of disorder and different articles lay scattered in the house. This evidence has been supported by Charku P. W. 14. who has also stated that when he reached Singrai's house the house was in a state of disorder, various articles having been thrown all over the place. Both these witnesses had found Singrai Manjhi dead and this fact has been corroborated by Dasrath P. W. 1 who had also found Singrai Manjhi dead when he had gone to Singrai's house in the night in question. All the three witnesses had found injuries on Singrai's person. THErefore it must be held that there was an occurrence in the house of Singrai in the night between the 16th and 17th October 1965. in which Singrai had been killed,