ASIMUDDIN SARDAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dacoity was committed on the night of February 25th, 1919, in the house of Kali Das Lahiri of Namkani, a large quantity of property of various kinds was taken away, and Kali Das was killed. The Police made a few arrests during March and on April 1st, a man, named Jaba Sardar, appeared before the investigating officer and made a statement, as the result of which numerous arrests were made. In the end twenty two men were placed on their trial before the Court of Session, and the jury were unanimous in finding fourteen of them guilty under various sections. These fourteen appealed and the appeal was admitted in the cases of four of them, viz.--Asimuddin Sardar, Abjan Sardar, Sobandi Paramanik and Mofizuddin Paramanik, and in regard to sentence only in the cases of Jamin Sheikh and Jadulla Sardar, while it was dismissed summarily as regards the other eight.

(2.) It is convenient to deal first with the case of Abjan Sardar; he is brother of Jaba Sardar, the man who made a statement to the Police on April 1st, and was afterwards examined as a witness. In dealing with the evidence against him in particular the learned Judge pointed out how little there was against him. The approver said that he turned back on the way to the dacoity and took no part in it; or, rather, in the first Court he said that Abjan turned back on the way, and in the Sessions Court that he took no part, a suspicious discrepancy as was pointed out to the jury. Of the other evidence, the Judge remarked that one fact, even if believed, had very little weight, that another fact, if believed, did not show that Abjan was in the dacoity, and that a third fact amounted to nothing in itself. I think it is clear that the Judge invited the jury to acquit Abjan. The jury, however, did not do so, and it is contended that the Judge ought to have gone farther and said that there was no evidence against him. I think that view is correct, and Mr. Orr, for the Crown, admits that he cannot press the case against Abjan. The result is that his appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence set aside so far as he is concerned.

(3.) I turn next to the case of Sobhandi: the position regarding him is quite different, for he is named positively by the approver, and a glass containing a large number of rupees was found underground near his house. The glass was identified by Kali Daa Lahiri s widow and son, and if that identification is believed the discovery is very strong corroboration of the approver s story. The facts were placed before the jury correctly, and they found Sobhandi guilty. It is impossible for us to say that there was any misdirection, and his appeal must be dismissed.