BULAK GOPE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Patina, agreeing with the unanimous verdict of guilty by a jury, has convicted the appellants under Section 395, I.P.C. (dacoity) and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for five years. We have carefully examined the charge of the learned Judge and do not find any misdirection or non direction which may amount to misdirection and which can be interfered with.

(2.) The learned advocate for the appellants however laid some stress upon an observation of the learned Judge in connexion with omissions or contradictions made by the witnesses before the police or the Magistrate as compared with their statements before the Court, and contended that this general observation might have influenced the jury in disregarding the omissions or contradictions which were pointed out to them on behalf of the defence though they were important.

(3.) The observation of the learned Judge which has been thus criticized by the learned advocate runs as follows: Again some instances have been pointed out to you to show that the statements made by the witnesses in this Court do not find place in the records of their statements as prepared by the police or the committing Court, and it has been suggested that they are only after-thoughts and should be rejected. In drawing your conclusion from these omissions you should remember that the committing Magistrate and the police officers were not concerned with a detailed record of the statement of the witnesses, but were merely making investigation leading up to the trial in this Court. It is however always for you to decide whether the omissions are due to these circumstances or because evidence has subsequently been concocted to support the prosecution case.