SARAT CHANDRA DHUPI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sarat Chandra Dhupi, otherwise known as Das, was convicted by a Special Tribunal at Mymensingh for an offence Under Section 396, I. P. C, and was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. He was originally charged along with several other persons who were subsequentlyacquitted by the tribunal on the ground that there was no satisfactory and independent evidence to corroborate that given by the approver in the case. The judgment which we have now to consider deals only with the case of Sarat Chandra Dhupi, the present appellant. The only question in this appeal is whether or not the evidence of the approver ought to be accepted. He narrated a circumstantial and detailed story of an occurrence which took place on the night of Sunday, 5 June 1932. Put shortly, the story was that he was fetched from the place where he lived by Sarat Chandra Dhupi and taken to a spot where other men to the number of twelve or fourteen were assembled together armed with guns and revolvers for the purpose of committing a dacoity and that later in the same evening the whole party proceeded to the village of Kuniati and there forcibly entered the bari of a man named Khoda Newaz. It appears that at the time when the dacoits approached the bari, there was a man named Harip Akanda who was the father of Khoda Newaz's sister-in-law standing in the outer part of the bari. He was seized and tied up and a number of the dacoits mounted guard over him, while the main body went inside the bari. The majority of the dacoits remained in the courtyard but a party of four or five of them entered the western bhiti hut from which the owner, the man Khoda Newaz, had already fled. He seems to have been a person of very small courage because he left his wife Durlabjan Bibi in the hut at the mercy of the dacoits. This Durlabjan Bibi subsequently gave evidence in the case. A wooden chest was broken open and various articles and a quantity of money were taken away to the value of about Rs. 1,300.

(2.) In the meantime a small boy who was a servant of Harip Akanda had fled into the outer bari. One of the dacoits seems to have noticed him moving away and called attention to him in offensive language. A shot was fired and the boy whose name is Rahim Bux thereupon fell wounded. He died whilst being taken to hospital next day. By the time the dacoits had finished their operations in the bari and were moving off villagers had begun to assemble and a pursuit was started. The dacoits fired shots from time to time in the direction of their pursuers until they reached a place called Rampur Bazar which is situated at the junction of two main roads a mile and a half distant from the actual scene of the dacoity. By that time the villagers had more or less surrounded the dacoits and accordingly the dacoits finding themselves in difficulties fired a volley into the crowd of villagers with the result that five of them were wounded and one of them a man called Rahimuddi was killed. The villagers thereupon retired and the dacoits made good their escape.

(3.) The approver was a man named Ambika Charan Bhattacharjee. In effect the evidence which he gave set forth the story of the occurrence as above narrated. He had already made some statements of a confessional nature which when examined appear to tally reasonably well with the evidence he subsequently gave before the Court. The learned Commissioners have discussed at very great length the question of the extent to which the evidence of the approver was corroborated by that given by the other witnesses. Mr. Roy Chowdhury who appears for the Crown has in the absence of anyone on behalf of the appellant very properly taken us through all the relevant parts of the evidence. He has pointed out to us such statements in the testimony of the various witnesses as he says tend to corroborate the story told by the approver. It seems to us abundantly clear that there was ample corroboration in several material particulars. The evidence given by the various witnesses shows quite conclusively that there was corroboration on three significant points: (1) the approver's statement that he was fetched from his own house on the night of the occurrence to take part in this dacoity; (2) the evidence to the effect that Sarat Chandra Dhupi, or Das as he is generally referred to, had purchased an axe which was subsequently found about halfway between the scene of the occurrence and Rampur Bazar. A witness was called who said that he had actually made the axe and sold it to Sarat Chandra. The evidence of the approver was that Sarat Chandra carried an axe and he was one of the party who entered the western bhiti and broke open the chest, and (3) the evidence of Jahuruddin who recognized Sarat Chandra Dhupi as being one of the party of dacoits at the time when they were retreating after the occurrence.