HACHANI KHAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case arises out of a dacoity that was committed on the night of 2 November, 1928, in the boat of one Kali Kumar Banikya, an itinerant vendor of metal utensils. The other occupants of the boat were Kali Kumar's nephew, Lebu, and two Manjhis named Rajendra and Bir Oharan. They were all strangers to the locality and so were unable to recognize any of the dacoits as men who had been known to them from before. Kali Kumar lodged a first information at the thana on 3 November, in which he stated that none of the occupants of the boat had beer able to recognize anyone, but that he thought that he might be able to recognize two or three of the dacoits, if he saw them again. He also gave descriptions of three of the dacoits, one of whom, he said, had threatened him with a knife, while the other two had caught him by the throat. On coming to the spot, the Sub-Inspector arrested one Samiruddin, and in consequence of information given by Samiruddin, a box of utensils that had been stolen by the dacoits was recovered from the bed of the river. Various other articles were also seized, and a number of persons were arrested and sent up for trial. When produced before the Magistrate, Samiruddin made a confession and was subsequently made an approver Seven persons, including the three appellants, were committed for trial before the Third Additional Sessions Judge of Mymensingh, and of these, three were acquitted, while the three appellants and one other person, who has not joined in the present appeal, were convicted on a unanimous verdict of guilty.

(2.) The evidence consists mainly of that of the approver Samiruddin who gives a detailed account of the whole affair from start to finish, and the evidence of Kali Kumar, Lebu and Rajendra to tae effect that the three appellants were among the dacoits, and also the evidence of some of the local men regarding the movements of the approver and of his associates immediately before and immediately after the occurrence, as well as evidence regarding the recovery of the box of utensils and the proceedings of the police in the course of the investigation.

(3.) The statements of the appellants at the trial were to the effect that they were innocent and knew nothing about the occurrence, while the defence sought to be set up on their behalf in cross-examination and in argument appears to have been that they had been falsely implicated by the approver, partly in order to exculpate his real associates in the crime and partly out of enmity. It was not denied by the defence at the time of the trial that the dacoity had actually taken place as alleged and that the approver had been one of the dacoits, nor has any such contention been urged on appeal.