AMARSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused Amar Singh, who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nim Ka Thana, on 19-5-1950 under Sections 449 and 307, Penal Code and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250 or six months simple imprisonment in default of its payment on each count. Both sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts of this case are that on 20-9-1949 at about 5 P. M. one Gopal Singh Rajput, resident of Bagoll village, lodged a report at the police station, Torawati. It was alleged that the accused, who was an absconder and an associate of dacoits, had made a criminal trespass in their house (Raola) at about 3 P. M. that day armed with a gun. It was further alleged that the accused was labouring under a suspicion that the informant and other occupants of that house had given shelter to his aunt and concealed her in their house and, therefore, he told them that she should be brought out. An effort was made to convince the accused that his aunt was not present in that house but the accused abused them and fired a gunshot at Indar singh, who was injured. It was also reported that the accused was overpowered by them, his gun was seized and he was closed inside a room in that house. On this information the police reached the scene of occurrence the same day, arrested the accused and seized the gun and cartridges which were produced by indar Singh , The accused has admitted in the trial Court that he was arrested by the police in the said house but he denied having committed any offence. It was pleaded by him that the complainant had laid a trap for him and got him arrested on a false accusation. According to him he was playing cards in his house when one Kalyan Singh came to him and told him that he should accompany him and receive his share of profits of Raghunathpura village, so he went with him to that house and as soon as he reached there he was caught and closed inside a room. The trial court did not believe the story given out by the accused and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the only evidence against the appellant is that of Gopalsingh, Amarsingh and Indarsingh, who belong to the same group of complainants, that their statements are full of discrepancies and contradictions and the prosecution evidence is neither sufficient nor reliable enough for maintaining his conviction.