PIDDA ENUMUNDUGARU ALIAS ARULU RAMUDU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sessions Judge has nowhere in his charge to the Jury directed their attention to the evidence as to the number of the robbers so as to show that there were five or more offenders and that the offence amounted to dacoity. THE evidence shows that there were six robbers. But three of the accused were acquitted. It is, therefore, impossible to say that there must have been five or more robbers and that the accused have not been prejudiced by the neglect of the Sessions Judge to deal correctly with this matter in his charge to the jury. We must take it that the evidence does not show that the offence was more than robbery under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, and we alter the conviction to one under that section. We observe too that the Sessions Judge has sentenced the 5 accused to five years rigorous imprisonment and the 1 accused to only two years, though the 5 appears to have taken, if anything, a less active part in the offence and the Sessions Judge gives no reason for the difference as he certainly ought to have clone. We reduce the sentence on the 5 accused to two years rigorous imprisonment. We make no alteration in the sentence on the 1 accused.