EMPEROR Vs. CHHADAMMI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Government appeal against the acquittal of Chhadammi Lal, son of Sarju Prasad, caste Brahman, resident of Khajuha, police station Bindki, district Fatehpur, who was charged under Secs.395, 397 and 398. Two dacoities were committed, one at Maika-ka-purwar in the house of Maika Kewat on 28th December 1932 and the other in Mauza Ranupur in the house of Hari Lal on 30th December 1932. In connection with these dacoities, Chhadammi Lal, respondent, and Gulab were prosecuted. Both were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. The Government have appealed against the acquittal of Chhadammi Lal alone.

(2.) No trace of these dacoities was found till the time Chhadammi Lal made a confession on 14 June 1933. On 2 April, 1933 Chhadammi Lal, who was wanted in connection with several other dacoities, was arrested at Fardahan railway station in the Lakhimpur district by Ghoore Khan, constable. He was brought from Lakhimpur to Unao on 14 April 1933. Identification proceedings were held in the Unao jail on 21 May 1933. Thereafter Chhadammi Lal was sent back to Lakhimpur on 31 May 1933. He was brought from there to Fatehpur jail on 9 June 1933. He made a confession which was recorded partly on 14 and partly on 17 June 1933. Identification proceedings were conducted in Fatehpur jail in connection with these dacoities in which Chhadammi Lal was identified by several witnesses. On 22nd and 23 June 1933 Chhadammi Lal took a Deputy Magistrate with him and pointed out some places in connection with these dacoities. Chhadammi Lal retracted his confession. The learned Sessions Judge, finding that the identification was not reliable and the confession had not been corroborated, acquitted Chhadammi Lal.

(3.) There is no doubt that these two dacoities were committed as stated by the prosecution witnesses. The only question is how far the prosecution has succeeded in proving the participation of the respondent in either of these dacoities. Besides his own retracted confession and the evidence of the identifying witnesses, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent. As regards his confession, the respondent has stated that it was made under the tutoring of the police. When he was asked to make a confession, he told the Sub-Inspector who had asked him to make the confession that he did not know the places of the dacoities and would not be able to point them out. As stated by the respondent, he was taken by the Sub-Inspector on 21 June 1933 to the places which he pointed out on succeeding days to the learned Deputy Magistrate. There is no evidence in support of the statement of the respondent, but there is one fact which is very significant. On 21 June 1933 the respondent was taken out of the jail at 10 a.m. and he was not readmitted till 24 June 1933. The Magistrate met the respondent at Jahanabad on 22 June, 1933. On 22 June, 1933 the respondent took the Magistrate to point out the places in connection with Ranupur dacoity. He jointed out one grove at Nanora where, he stated, the dacoits had left a cart and Sukhanpur Purwa, where the respondent laid he had taken two Gadaryas to take he dacoits to Ranupur. He also pointed out at Ranupur the house of Hari Lal where the dacoity was committed and pointed out a well near the house on the platform of which he said he sat and a box was opened. A pit was also pointed rat by the respondent where, according to him one dacoit fell down breaking his arm. None of these places has been mentioned in the confession and consequently the mere fact that these places were pointed out would not amount to. corroboration of any matter in the confession.