G.B.Singh - (1.) ALI Raza and Peer ALI appellants have been convicted for the offence of dacoity punishable under section 395 IPC by the Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich. ALI Raza appellant has been ordered to be kept in safe custody under section 32 of the U. P. Children Act instead of being sentenced to imprisonment. Peer ALI appellant has been sentenced to ten years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that on the night between 20/21-2- 1979 at about midnight 18 or 20 dacoits armed with lathis and country made pistols raided the house of Ahmad informant in village Bahadur Purwa, P. S. Nanpara, District Bahraich, and committed dacoity there. THE dacoits were carrying electric torches and were flashing them. Ahmad and other inmates of the house raised alarm whereupon several persons of the village arrived. THE rescuers made an attempt to apprehend the dacoits whereupon marpit took place. One dacoit died on the spot and Ali Raza and Peer Ali were captured on the spot. Other dacoits succeeded in making their escape good along with the booty. Ahmad lodged the FIR of the incident of 21-2-79 at 6.35 P. M. at P. S. Nanpara, which is, at a distance of about four miles from the place of incident. On that report a case under section 395/397 IPC was registered. Ali Raza and Peer Ali were taken to P. S. Nanpara and they were handed over there to the police. The case was investigated and the charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and some others. On behalf of the prosecution Ahmad PW 1, Bachan PW 2, Raunaq Ali PW 3, Ishaq Ali PW 4 and Abdul Majeed PW 5 were examined as witnesses of the occurrence. The evidence of other witnesses was of a formal nature. Ali Raza and Peer Ali stated in defence that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity with police. Ali Baza further stated that Khaibar barber of Village Keshwapur is his Khalu. He had gone to see Khaibar. Ahmad and others apprehended him from the place of his relation Khaibar and implicated him in the case. Peer Ali stated that Tahir, resident of village Bahadur Purwa, is his Sarhu. He had gone to see his relation Tahir. The village people apprehended him on suspicion and got him implicated in the case. The appellants did not give any evidence in defence.
(3.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge believed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Feeling dissatisfied with it the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the finding of the trial court that the appellants were among the dacoits who committed dacoity at the house of Ahmad on the relevant night and they are guilty for the offence of dacoity punishable under section 395 IPC. In my opinion he did not rightly assail the finding of the trial court on this point. The reason is that Ahmad PW 1, Bachan PW 2, Raunaq Ali PW 3, Ishaq Ali PW 4, and Abdul Majid PW 5 made consistent statements that Ali Raza and Peer Ali appellants were among the dacoits who were responsible for the dacoity at the house of Ahmad and they were captured by the village people on the spot. The appellants did not give any evidence in support of their defence that they were captured on mere suspicion. They did not even pray to examine their so called relations to support their version. The suggestion made on their behalf in cross examination of the witnesses that they were among the rescuers and chased the dacoits itself shows that they were present near the place of incident at the time of dacoity. The prosecution witnesses had no motive to make false statements against the appellants. There is nothing in their cross examination to indicate that they were making false statements about the appellants. The evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, therefore, fully proved that Ali Raza and Peer Ali were among the dacoits and they along with others committed dacoity at the house of Ahmad on the relevant night.;