LAIJAM SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one Laijam Singh against a conviction for dacoity, which, if true, discloses a bad case, inasmuch as he was apparently one of the ring- leaders in a dacoity in which something like 15 men are alleged to have taken part, in which a considerable amount of loot was obtained, and in which one prominent man was possessed of a gun. Three out of the 4 assessors thought the ease was proved, but in a case of this kind they are not unlikely to be influenced by the view of the learned Judge who was satisfied with the evidence. Together with the appeal, an application in revision has been filed by the Goverment Advocate raising the question of the section under which the conviction was passed, and of the comparatively light sentence having regard to the fact that the accused was armed with a gun which he fired during the dacoity if his guilt is established. It is possible that the learned Judge was inclined to take a lenient course because, as he expressed it, it was a pity that a pensioned havildar licensed to carry arms, should have gone out of his way to rob people in this way, and it is just possible that the learned Judge was also influenced by the difficulty of the case. But; it cannot be denied that the view taken by the Government Advocate in submitting revision is a sound one, and that if the accused was guilty, he was guilty of a serious crime against the public peace.

(2.) The case was an extremely difficult one as is indicated by the length of the learned Judge's judgment, in which he felt compelled to discuss various matters which in our view do not really strengthen the case against the accused. The case against the accused, when the matter is clearly understood, is reduced to a small compass, and although he has not been represented by a trained lawyer in the appeal before us, he has submitted a petition of appeal quite contrary to the ordinary jail petitions to which one has become accustomed, in which ha raises on his own behalf at least two if not more points, which are calculated, when one compares them with the evidence, to raise a doubt in one's mind.

(3.) The story of the dacoity is a little out of the common. It took place at a village about 40 miles from the village of the accused. The owner of the house Jawahir was absent from home. He had a brother named Putti Lal and he had recently purchased a horse and was in possession of the receipt which had been made out to him on a piece of white paper. Ha does not say where the receipt was kept and when he saw it last, and curiously enough nobody was struck at the trial by the obvious question where the receipt was eventually found, if at all, after the dacoity. On the night of the 6 of January during Jawahir's absence while members of his family were in the house, a man came in and asked for fire and was allowed to sit down and to have it, and at some later stage he was joined by four other men who were also allowed to sit down and have the fire, and it therefore happened that the inmates of the house found themselves sitting over the fire with five complete strangers who were making preparation to commit this dacoity. As regards these five, they must have had ample opportunity of identifying them if they ever saw them again. Shortly afterwards other men arrived upon the scene and proceeded to ransack the house. They were protected, if not led, by a man who stalked up and down outside carrying a gun, and who was said at the trial to be wearing a beard. As the accused also wears a beard, this fact becomes an important item in the evidence against him. But it so happens that according to the diary, which it had become in this case important to examine with care, nobody told the police, although they did say they could identify the men, that there was one dacoit stalking about with a gun wearing a beard. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the beard connecting the man with the gun is not an after-thought. The dacoity took about an hour, and the man with the gun eventually warned the gang that they were being pressed and had better be off, and away they went, and except for the accused have never been seen so as to be recognized again. The first question which arises is whether it can be said without doubt that the prosecution has proved satisfactorily that the accused was the man with the gun. The accused does in fact carry a gun under a licence.