MUHAMMAD USUF KHAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . 1. This revision arises out of a criminal prosecution started against the applicant for an offence punishable Under Section 161, I.P.C. The applicant is a Forester posted in Kedarpur getting Rs. 27-12-0 as his monthly pay. On the Holiday, which fell on 18th March 1927, he got information that a shooting party was coming for shooting into the Government forest in his charge. Out of the party he could arrest only four persons and the rest escaped. A gun possessed by Charru without license was also seized. After the persons, namely, Charru (P.W. 15), Bhonga (P.W. 18), Adku (P.W. 26), Harisingh (P.W. 30) and one Gocha, who escaped, were arrested, one Bhangi (P.W, 36) came and offered to stand surety for them at the Forest Naka at Bakhari where they were taken in the meantime. After his suretyship was accepted and they were released, it is said that the applicant threw out a hint for a bribe, if the persons arrested desired him to hush up the case of a forest offence. A deputation of three persons, Amka (P.W. 4), Gopalsingh (P.W. 16) and the surety Bhangi (P.W. 36) came for negotiating and settling the bribe to be paid to him, but, as his demand which was for Rs. 1,500 was considered to be exorbitant, nothing could be settled by them.

(2.) THEREAFTER , later, on the following day (19th March 1927) a second batch consisting of Charru, Janglih Harisingh, and Bhangi came and prevailed upon the accused to agree to a bribe of Rs. 900 only. Then a sum of Rs. 730 was collected for the bribe and Rs. 710 out of it were paid to the accused on 20th March 1927, and the gun belonging to Charru was returned to the surety Bhangi with instructions to hand it back to Charru on payment by him of the balance of Rs. 190 on applicant's account to Bhangi (P.W. 36). Ex. 2 is the official report of the forest offence signed by the applicant. It bears date 18th-28th March 1927; whereas Ex. P-8 is his tour diary narrating incidents from 16th March 1927, to 23rd March 1927, Ex. P-8 bears applicant's signature under dated 25th March 1927. It reached Mr. Cleophas (P.W. 1) on 27th March 1927, as his endorsement under entry of 18th March 1927, in the diary shows. It appears that the report (Ex. P-2) had not been received by Mr. Cleophas till 27th March 1927, and this necessitated the calling up of an explanation from the applicant who explained under date 29th March 1927, that his bundle was at Piparia and he himself was laid up with fever for three days at Kedarpur but had already made a report on plain paper, as his endorsement on Ex. P-2 shows.

(3.) THE applicant challenges the correctness of the conviction on various grounds. Several of them deal with the question of the right appreciation of the evidence on record and the probabilities of the case, and stress is laid on the non-production of some material evidence. An attempt was made to argue that some exceptional circumstances were brought out in the evidence which showed that the conclusions of the trying Magistrate as also of the Sessions Judge were perverse and that the evidence did not justify them. One serious objection raised against the legality of the conviction is that it is baaed on evidence of persons who are mere accomplices. Reliance is placed on the decision in Queen-Empress v. Maganlal [1890] 14 Bom. 115, Queen-Empress v. Chagan Dayaram [1890] 14 Bom. 331, King-Emperor v. Malhar [1902] 26 Bom. 193 and In re, Vyasa Rao [1911] 21 M.L.J. 283 in support of the objection. The learned Standing Counsel for the Crown bring3 a case in Emperor v. Shrinivas [1905] 7 Bom. L.R. 969 to my notice and asks me to hold on its authority that the witnesses were not accomplices, and even if they were so, he contends that they were reliable and relied upon, and that the finding as to the applicant's guilt was justifiable on other independent corroborative facts held proved in the case.