SARJU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants Sarju, Manki and Baram with two others, Dhari and Chandrajit, were convicted by a Magistrate, First Glass, Ghazipur, of an offence under Section 579, I.P.C., in that they out the gram crop belonging to one Ramdeo in village Sarauli. Chandrajit, aged 16, was released on his executing a bond under Section 562, Criminal P.C. On appeal by the remaining four accused the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Dhari.

(2.) The complainant found on several occasions that his gram crop in a certain field was partly removed over night. On the night between 3 and 4 March 1931 he in company of one Hardeo, kept a secret watch on the field. After midnight according to the case for the prosecution the five accused entered his field and began to cut the crop standing thereon. The complainant and Hardeo quietly advanced towards the field, and when they were sufficiently near the spot, the complainant made a rush towards the thieves. Basram was caught on the spot but the others made good their escape. A report was made at the thana next morning. The investigation resulted in the prosecution of all the five accused.

(3.) The evidence in the case was direct. There was no question of identification, the accused being all known to the complainant and Hardeo. The accused examined the village patwari in defence to. establish the fact that there had been no gram crop in the field in question in that year. The field in which theft is alleged to have been committed is No. 415/1. The patwari showed from the records in his possession that wheat had been sown and not gram. This surprise was sprung on the prosecution at a late stage of the case. No suggestion of this kind was made so far as the record shows when the complainant was examined, nor did the accused state in their defence that the field had not been sown with gram at all. The learned Magistrate made an inspection of the field and discovered stumps of dried gram plants. A grievance is made of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not give any previous intimation of his intention to visit the field and that he did not record the result of his inspection in a note which as required by Section 539- B, Criminal P.C. should have been made part of the record.