YUSUF MIA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are four appellants: No. 1, Yusuf Mia alias Isu, aged twenty-six, has been convicted under Section 397, I.P.C., and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment; No. 2, Hafiz Mia, aged twenty seven, has been convicted under Section 392 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment; No. 3, Rahim Mia, aged forty-five, and No. 4, his son Lakku Mia aged eighteen years, have also been convicted under Section 392 and each sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. The convictions were based on majority verdicts of a jury, who by a majority of four to one found Yusuf and Hafiz guilty and by a majority of three to two found Lakku and Rahim guilty under the Secs.under which they have been convicted.

(2.) The prosecution case was that these four with three other persons trespassed at night into the paddy field of Sudin Sahu (P. W. 1). Sudin Sahu and his son Gainu were keeping watch over the paddy in an improvised hut. They awoke and ran at the thieves whereupon they were assaulted by Hafiz and Yusuf, the latter of whom with a lathi inflicted grievous hurt by breaking the arm of Sudin. Alarm being raised, the miscreants ran away. Rahim and Lakku are said to have been recognized standing by with lathis. They are related to the other accused. The only eye-witnesses of the occurrence were Sudin and his son Gainu; and the Additional Sessions Judge correctly told this to the jury. The testimony of these two witnesses in Court was not corroborated by recovery of any stolen property from the possession of any of the accused. So far as the fact of the incident was concerned, it was confirmed by the finding of cut paddy and by medical evidence as to the injuries on the persons of Sudin and Gainu. But as regards the identity of the persons concerned in the theft and beating, the only corroboration which the prosecution could attempt to give was corroboration by statements made by the victims to witnesses after the occurrence.

(3.) The principal objection to the charge is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not give the jury the assistance to which they were entitled to dealing with the several cases of the individual accused and in distinguishing the different stages at which statements were reported to have been made by Sudin. In the petition of appeal reference is made to an alleged misdirection in the matter of the omission of the prosecution to examine witnesses Jugeswar Chamar and Sono Gop: also that there was misdirection in dealing with witnesses whose statements before the committing Magistrate and in the Sessions Court did not tally and that there was misdirection in the comment on discrepancies between statements to the police and statements at the trial.