EMPEROR Vs. BECHAN CHERO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on Bachan Chero, aged twenty-five, on a conviction for murdering Sheojatan Ahir on 1 October 1942. The facts were that Bechan Chero and two other persons Sukar Chero and Ramchela Chero were placed on their trial before the special Judge of Shahabad exercising jurisdiction under Ordinance 2 of 1942. The charge against the three accused was one under Section 396, Indian Penal Code. The learn, ed Judge found all the accused persons guilty and sentenced Bechan to death and Sukar Chero and Ramchela Chero to eight years rigorous imprisonment. Then, as he was bound to do under Section 8 of the Ordinance, he submitted the proceedings to the Review Judge. At the same time, he directed that the sentence of death passed on Bechan Chero should not be executed until it had been confirmed by the High Court. The matter then came before the Review Judge who, at that time, was Rowland J. Rowland J. upheld the convictions and confirmed the sentence of death passed on Bechan Chero. Considering that the sentences passed on the other two accused persons were inadequate, he enhanced them to transportation for life. All the accused persons then made an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C., alleging that they were illegally detained and praying for their release. This application was made on 18 March 1943. Subsequently, the Ordinance of 1942 was repealed by Ordinance 19 of 1943, which conferred a right of appeal on all persons who had been convicted by the Special Courts in proceedings under the Ordinance of 1942. Taking advantage of this right of appeal all the accused preferred an appeal to this Court on 11 June 1943. The appeals of the three accused are considered together with the reference for confirmation of the sentence of death passed on Bechan Chero.

(2.) The facts which gave rise to this prosecution are that at midnight on 1st October 1942, some 50 or 60 persons attacked the hut of Sheojatan Ahir in village Katror. They beat on the walls and roof of the hut with the result that the inmates were awakened, and the attention of the neighbours was attracted. Sheojatan Ahir and his wife Mangri P.W. 1, emerged from the hut. Sheojatan was immediately shot by one of the dacoits who had a shot-gun in his hand. He died almost at once. Thereafter his wife Mangri was assaulted, stripped and robbed of the ornaments she was wearing. Other articles belonging to Sheojatan and his wife were also removed from the hut by the dacoits. The next day Mangri appeared at the police station, which is sixteen miles away from the scene of the occurrence, accompanied by a number of her neighbours who had been wounded by the dacoits. With them they took the dead body of Sheojatan. Her statement was recorded in the form of a first information at 7-30 on the evening of the 1st. In it she gave a detailed description of the occurrence which has been supported by her evidence at the trial. The names of the wounded neighbours who accompanied Mangri were mentioned in the first information report, and they also were examined at the trial. The evidence of these witnesses is clear not only that a dacoity was committed at Sheojatan's house on the night in question, but that the accused participated in the crime. Six of the witnesses examined by the prosecution were named in the first information report, namely, witnesses 2, 8, 4, 5, 7 and 8. All of these received injuries at the hands of the dacoits and all of them except No. 2 had their injuries examined by a doctor who has given evidence at the trial. In addition, four other persons claiming to be eye-witnesses were examined, namely Nos. 6, 15, 16 and 17. The evidence of these witnesses appears to me to be clear and convincing. The main ground on which it is attacked is that it is said that the witnesses had deposed at the instigation of Bira Chero, the chaukidar of the village, with whom the accused are said to be on terms of enmity owing to an illicit connection between the chaukidar and some woman of the village.

(3.) The evidence discloses that the chaukidar was not present at the time of the occurrence and did not in fact put in an appearance at the scene until early in the morning. By then the eye-witnesses had assembled at the house of Sheojatan and has exchanged with each other information as to what each had seen. It appears that Mangri had disclosed the names of the three accused, alleging that she had identified them, and the injured men had disclosed that they also had identified the same three accused. So far as witnesses 15 and 17 are concerned, they identified only Bechan, while witness 16 claims to have identified Bechan and Sukar. Even if it be true that the chaukidar of the village is on terms of enmity with the accused persons, there is no indication on the record of this case that he has any influence on the evidence which has been given against the accused persons.