TARACHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Tarachand has been convicted under Section 395, IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to under go further rigorous imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, by his judgment dated 17 -5 -76.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 11th and 12th May, 1973, about 10 -11 dacoits committed the dacoity in the house of Ajudhya Prasad and others in village Tod. It was further alleged that the appellant Tarachand was with the dacoits at the time of occurrence and tie assisted the dacoits in pointing out the house of Ajudhya Prasad. It was further alleged that the male members of the family of Ajudhya Prasad and others went in a marriage to a nearby village Sabalpura. There were ladies only left at the house of Ajudhya Prasad. When the dacoits came the ladies, out of fear, ran away except Anar Dei (PW. 2) and Baijanti (PW. 3), who were sleeping in the house of Ajudhya Prasad. When dacoits came they woke up these ladies, that is, Anar Dai and Baijanti, and asked them to part with the ornaments they were wearing. This was done. After breaking open the lock of the house of Ajudhya Prasad ornaments, cloths etc. were looked and taken away by the dacoits. The dacoits then made good their escape. Thereafter Nabbu Teli was sent to village Sabalpura where the marriage party had gone to inform about the dacoity having taken place. The marriage party returned in the morning. Gulab Singh (PW. 1) enquired about the matter and then lodged the first information report at the police station, Dholpur. It seems the police failed to find out the dacoits, who actually had committed the dacoits and taken away the property and also failed to recover the property or any part of it taken away by the dacoits. It, however, prosecuted Tarachand, the appellant, under Section 395, I.P.C., for his act of assisting in the dacoity. After trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the police has not been able to find out any of the dacoits who actually committed the dacoity. It has also failed to recover any ornaments or booty. But simply because there had been enmity between the Gulabsingh and his family and the appellant, he has been assigned thisrole of assisting in the dacoity by pointing out the house of Ajudhya Prasad. He has been falsely implicated.' To support his contention he has tried to point out that there are improbabilities in the prosecution case and there are contradictions which go at the root of the case. It is also against human conduct that the appellant would, for the purpose of pointing out the house of Ajudhya Prasad, go with the dacoits and take the risk of his being identified by the witnesses, particularly when he belonged to that very village and there was every risk of his being identified. His contention, therefore, is that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He has pointed out the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that there is no corroboration of the statements of the partisan witnesses with whom there is long standing enmity.