BARNABAS CHRISTIAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Barnabas Christian appeals against the judgment, dated 18 December 1933, of Babu B.M. Chatterji, Additional District Magistrate of Dhanbad with special powers under Section 30, Criminal P.C., whereby that officer convicted him under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 in default rigorous imprisonment for three months more. The charge framed against Barnabas and six other men was that on 26 August 1933, at Mahalidih, P.S. Tundi, Z. Manbhum, they committed dacoity in the houses of Dinu Mandal and Tiku Mandal. Six of the accused were convicted, but only Barnabas has appealed. The proceedings were instituted on the basis of a "first information report" which was lodged by Dinu's brother Nathu Mandal at the Tundi police station on 27 August at 1 p. m.

(2.) The police station is situated about 18 miles from the place of occurrence. Nathu stated that he had heard the dacoity going on, but was afraid to come out of his house until the dacoits had departed. He found Dinu lying injured. Dinu asked him to go to the police station and lodge information. Dinu did not mention the names of any dacoits to him, so the F.I.R. was lodged against "persons unknown, about 15 or 16 in number." When the Sub-Inspector reached the spot on 28 August in the evening, Dinu named some of the dacoits. It appears from the order sheet that Barnabas, Chandu Kol, Lachhu Kol and two other accused were arrested and taken to Dhanbad together on 30 August. On 2nd September, Chandu Kol and Lachhu Kol made confessions before a Sub-Deputy Magistrate.

(3.) At the trial the only witness who claimed to have seen Barnabas taking part in the dacoity was Dinu Mandal, who alleged that Barnabas had entered his hut with three others and assaulted him. Under cross-examination Dinu admitted that it was a dark night and that he did not come out of his room, but became unconscious after being assaulted inside his room. But he said that the dacoits had some lighted torches in the yard and some light entered the room when the door was broken, and he was thus enabled to recognize the dacoits with whom he was previously acquainted. The list of articles stolen (Ex. 4) shows that they were of trifling value. It is suggested that the dacoity was not committed for gain, but in order to satisfy a grudge against Dinu. Chandu and Lachhu in their confessions stated that the dacoity had been planned and led by Kinu Mandal of Mahalidih.