LAWS(PVC)-1946-2-72

PURAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On February 07, 1946
PURAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Manzoor Elahi has been convicted of an offence under Sections 395/397, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The appellant Puran Singh has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 395.

(2.) The facts are that about 11-30 p.m. on 13-12-1944, a military truck stopped opposite the shop of Panna Lal Modi (P.W. 2) in the town of Ranchi. Three men alighted from the track and entered the shop, one being armed with a revolver and another with a dagger. One of them snatched away from Panna Lal's hand a sum of Rs. 3000 in currency notes. Another of them removed the shop's cash box containing share-certificates, insurance-policies and money. The three men then got into the truck which drove off. On 16 of December, three days later, Manzoor Elahi made a statement to Sergeant Major Bradshaw (P.W. 1) who recorded it. Another statement was made by Puran Singh, and other statements by a number of other persons who were arrested in connection with this occurrence. On 18 a cash-box in a damaged condition was recovered from a trench latrine by coolies who had been sent to look for it by Sergeant Major Bradshaw. This box has been identified by Panna Lal as the cash box which was removed from his shop. He was in possession of the key which fitted the padlock on the box.

(3.) In connection with this occurrence eight persons were put on trial, of whom six have been acquitted for insufficiency of evidence establishing their presence at the occurrence. The conviction of the appellant, Manzoor Elahi rests on his identification by Panna Lal as the man who entered the shop armed with a revolver, on the statement which he made to Sergeant Major Bradshaw, and the discovery of the box by the Sergeant Major in consequence of that statement. So far as Puran Singh is concerned, no witness has identified him; his conviction rests on the statement which he made to the Sergeant Major and on the fact that it was he who took the Sergeant Major to the trench-latrine from which the box was recovered.