EMPEROR Vs. TUKARAM MALHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 21 appellants before the Court were charged before the Sessions Judge together with one other accused person, who was No. 15, under Section 401 of the Indian Penal Code, with the offence of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery. The 21 appellants were all convicted by the Sessions Judge of that offence, and hence their present appeal. The accused who was No. 15 before the Sessions Judge was acquitted by him. The assessors were for acquitting accused Nos. 5, 12 and 20 out of the 22 persons indicted. But as the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out they were unable to give any reasons why these three accused persons, Nos. 5, 12 and 20, should be held to stand on any different footing from that occupied by the other accused excepting No. 15. It may be added that no attempt has been made by the learned Counsel here to suggest that the case of accused Nos. 5, 12 and 20 is in any way different from the case of the other appellants.

(2.) In examining the evidence upon which these appellants have been convicted we start with this, that they are related to each other; that they are inhabitants of the villages of Rui in Satara and of Vadgaon, Karanje, Baburdi and Morgaon, in Poona; and that they all belong to the tribe known as Bhamtas or Uchlas. Now this record shows, what is otherwise familiar learning to those acquainted with these districts, that the Bhamtas are a tribe of thieves. By that I do not suggest that they are to be convicted merely because they were born into a certain class of people, but I do suggest that their connection with this particular tribe is a fact in favour of the prosecution. This record shows that of recent years the Bhamtas have specialized in running train thefts where their methods are so distinctive that their handiwork can be recognized without difficulty by police officers concerned in such investigations.

(3.) Mr. Branson for the appellants, who has said everything on behalf of his clients that ingenuity would suggest, has dealt with the case rather on its broad aspects than in minute detail. We think that that is the proper way in which the case should be approached, and we propose to follow the learned Counsel in that respect. For, it seems to us that no . good purpose would be served by any attempt to analyse the evidence in its bearings against each individual accused, inasmuch as the evidence of identification and of association is clear and uniform against all the accused. By that we mean that the evidence is good against any one accused as it is against all the others; nor has there been any argument before us that the evidence is comparatively weak or inclusive against any particular accused person.