NARAYAN DINBA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Narayan, son of Dinba, was convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 412, Penal Code, by the Section 30-Magistrate, Nagpur. With his appeal will be considered the appeals filed by Gullarshah, Santosh and Narayan son of Madhorao, who were each sentenced in the same trial to undergo two concurrent terms, each of 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and that of Mahgya who was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment in the same trial under Section 412, Penal Code. As Govinda's previous appeal has been summarily dismissed, his appeal now is untenable and it is dismissed. Watu who was convicted and sentenced in the same trial to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 412, Penal Code, has not appealed.

(2.) THE prosecution case was briefly stated as follows: On the night of 24-9-1944 dacoits carrying spears, swords and daggers raided the house of Mr. C.N. Joshi (P.W. 2), retired Superintendent of the Deputy Commissioner's office, Nagpur, and removed from it property worth about Us. 8000 after the inmates including Mr. Y.C. Joshi (P.W. 1), pleader, the son of Mr. C.N. Joshi, had been intimidated. The report, Ex. P-1, was made to the police almost immediately after the occurrence and in the subsequent investigation Articles A-F, H-Z, A-1 and A-2, A-3, A-5, Article J, Articles A-6, A-11, Articles I, K, nosering gold thread and cash amounting to Rs. 187 were seized from the appellant Narayan, son of Dinba. Of these articles, this appellant exhumed from a room in his house Articles A-F, U-X, Z, A-1, and A-2, the gold ornaments Articles J, A-3 and A-4, which were buried in another room were also produced by him and Articles A-6, A-10, I and K were found on a wall in the upper storey of his house where there was also a bag in which Article A, the rod of a nose-ring, was discovered.

(3.) ). The latter in examination averred that on 1-10-1944, the day before the seizures, Santosh and Govinda had brought a bag containing something in the absence of her son-in-law who when apprised of it next morning by her paid no attention to what she said to him. Strangely enough, she made no enquiries concerning its contents and her testimony regarding his absence from the house when the property arrived divaricated from his statement to the effect that he was at that time ill in house. It was, however, clear from her that Santosh and Govinda were this appellants friends. 4. Tukaram (D.W. 6) and Sakharam (D.W. 7) merely stated that when the police went to this Narayan's house and asked him where the property was, he said that it was in his house and they then seized it. The evidence was, however, interested by reason of the fact that they are his tenants. Miankhan (D.W. 8), who deposed to the arrival of Santosh and Govinda with two bags in Narayan's absence, was not, he declared, aware of the contents and he too was interested in Narayan who used to lend him money. Atmaram (D.W. 9) was similarly interested in him and his testimony was merely regarding character.