Decided on August 04,1965

MAN SINGH Appellant
STATE Respondents


J.N. Takru, J. - (1.)THESE are two connected criminal appeals. Cr. A. No. 2888 of 1963 is by Man Singh while Cr. A. No 508 of 1964 by Majnoo. Both these appeals are directed against the Appellants conviction and sentence of years' R. I. each under Section 395, IPC Eight other persons were tried alone.
(2.)IT is an undisputed fact that on the night between the 27th and the 28th April 1963 an armed dacoity was committed at the house of Pati Ram in village Nilkhanthpur, lying within the circle of Police Station Ghiror, in the district of Mainpuri. A report of this incident was lodged at Police Station Ghiror 10 miles away at about 4.30 p.m. on 8.4.1963 by P.W. 1 Karan Singh. In this report 4 culprits were nominated, while as for the others it was stated that they had been seen in the light of torches and a lantern and the light thrown by the burning 'toori' outside the house, and could be identified if produced.
After the report was lodged investigation was started by P.W. 25 Hari Dutt Sharma, S. I. Majnoo Appellant was arrested on 24.5.1963 by P.W. 24 B.B. Pandey from the house of P.W. 13 Suknj where the Appellant was apprehended in connection with a dacoity which had taken place there. He was made baparda and sent to Police Station Kotwali, from where he was sent baparda to the District Jail, Mainpuri and lodged there on the same day. Man Singh Appellant was arrested by P.W. 24 B.B. Pandey on 27.5.1963 in village Sansarpur at about 1O in the morning. After his arrest he was made baparda and taken to P.S. Kotwali from where he was sent baparda to the District Jail, Mainpuri and lodged there the same day. The test identification of Majnoo was conducted in Jail on 4.6.1963 and he was identified by three witnesses. The test identification of Man Singh took place in jail on 13.6.1963, and he was also identified by three witnesses. On receipt of the identification reports and after completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the Appellants and eight other persons and they were in the course committed to the court of sessions where they were tried with the results mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

The Appellants denied their complicity in the dacoity in question. As for their identification they stated that they had been shown to the witnesses after their arrests. The learned trial Judge, however, found two good identifications against each of the Appellants, and, accordingly held that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against them.

(3.)SRI . R.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for Majnoo, and Sri. Bhagwati Prasad Gupta, learned Counsel for Man Singh contended, that on the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge himself, both the Appellants were entitled to acquittal. After perusing the judgment and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, T am satisfied that this contention is well founded.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.