EMPEROR Vs. ARDALI MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur against the unanimous verdict of a jury finding all the six accused not guilty of a charge under Section 395, I.P.C., and committing dacoity in the house of one Dukha Jha of Shahbad, P.S. Bihpur. The dacoity was committed by about forty persons on the night of 31 May 1932, and first information was laid on 1 June 1932 at 11-30 a.m. by Madan Mohan Jha, a neighbour and gotia of Dukha, who had himself received injuries. The Sub-Inspector reached Shahabad at midnight and all the principal witnesses were examined the following day. The six accused persons were named in the first information and each of them has been identified by more than one witness. That the dacoity in fact took place, there is no room for doubt whatever.

(2.) Dukha is the richest man in his village and is a vary substantial cultivator and money-lender. It is said that cash and ornaments to a total value of Rs. 2,700 were taken. A number of persons were injured in the dacoity, that is to say, P.W. 1, Ghirit Lal Jha, P.W. 3, Madan Mohan Jha, P.W. 4, Jhing Lal Jha, P.W. 6, Bateswar Mandal, P.W. 7, Newa Lal Jha, P.W. 9, Basuki Jha, P.W. 14, Gobardhan and P.W. 16, Kunji Lal Jha. Medical evidence proves the injuries sustained. P.W. 5, Dukha, P.W. 11, Akhileswar Jha and P.W. 10, Bhadai Mandar are said to have received injuries but were not medically examined. The Sub-Inspector found unmistakable traces of a raid by a large body of persons. It is not necessary to go into all the details of broken boxes, scattered articles, blood marks, etc., but it may be pointed out that burnt straw was found in front of the darwaza and straw was found to have been taken out of the eaves and ashes of burnt papers and cloth were also round inside the angan.

(3.) This is relevant to the allegation of the prosecution witnesses that the dacoits burnt straw and by the light of the burning straw identification of them was made by the witnesses. The witnesses also stated that there was a lantern hung at a place marked B in the map. The Sub-Inspector stayed some nights in the village and he observed that it was the practice to keep a light burning at that place. Thus in spite of the fact that there was no moon at the time of occurrence the witnesses are not deposing to anything impossible when they say that there was sufficient light for them to identify the persons whom they have named. All the six accused on trial were known to the witnesses from before.