PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. BONIGIRI POTTIGADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The thirty-nine accused were tried by a jury for an. offence tinder Section 400, Indian Indian Penal Code and were found not guilty and acquitted. Against the acquittal the present appeal has been filed by the Government.

(2.) Before we can interfere with the verdict of the jury we must under Section 423 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, be satisfied that the verdict is erroneous owing to the misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him. The latter alternative may be left out of account in this case as there is no contention that the jury misunderstood the law as laid down by the Judge,

(3.) In a case under Section 400, Indian Penal Code the prosecution is bound to prove that the accused belonged to a gang which was consciously associated for the specific purpose of habitually committing dacoity. The associating and the purpose of association may be proved by the direct evidence that the accused or the accused and others met and determined to join together for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity. Such direct proof will, however, be rarely forthcoming and it is not contended that there is such proof in the present case. In the absence of direct evidence the associating and the purpose of association may be established by proof of facts from which they may be reasonably inferred, and it is such proof that the prosecution claims to have given. Evidence has been adduced to show: 1. That the accused with one exception are more or less closely related. 2. That the accused move about in batches have been arrested in batches and are absent from home in. batches. 3. That the accused commit dacoities in a uniform manner.