STATE Vs. AMARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in a case of robbery.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that in village Bhambhor, some 18 miles away from the City of Jodhpur, around mid-night intervening 27th and 28th September, 1956, 3 persons reached the premises of Seth. Jugraj. It appears that the residence and shop of Jugraj are in the same premises. One of these 3 persons made a gunfire apparently to intimidate Jugraj and on the threat of instant death or grievous hurt demanded from him his valuables. Two of them entered the residential part of the premises in the first instance where Bhanwarlal (Jugraj's son) and his wife were sleeping. Bhanwarlal awaked by gunfire endeavoured to come out of the residential part but two of the robbers caught hold of him. THEse robbers put instant fear of death or grievous hurt to Bhanwarlal if he did not produce cash and ornaments. Over-awed by this fear Bhanwarlal's wife parted with the ornaments which she had on her person. This did not appear to satisfy the robbers' expectations and they, therefore, brought Jugraj inside the house with his hands tied and resorted to physical violence to extort more valuables. Bhanwarlal was threatened to be burnt alive, he was throttled, his son was put in danger of death; injuries were inflicted on Jugraj who received as many as 9 injuries including the fracture of his 9th rib. Bhanwarlal was beaten by Dandas, kerosene oil was poured on his head and Jugraj was threatened that his nose would be cut. This worked terror. Jugraj and Bhanwarlal pointed out places where cash, ornaments and gold mohars were concealed. THE robbers collected goods of the value of about Rs. 15,000/- and burnt the Bahis of Seth Jugraj and decamped.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate's argument is that despite dependable oral and documentary evidence the court below has erred in holding that the case against the respondents was not proved. THE respondents were identified. Property said to have been looted has been recovered at the instance of the accused persons and has been identified. THE crime and the respondents have been inescapably linked and yet the court erroneously acquitted them altogether ignoring the significance of the recovery of the property at the instance of the respondents in accordance with the provisions of sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.