- (1.) We have gone through the papers in this case, and Bee no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the Sessions Judge as to the guilt of all the prisoners. With reference however to the sentence of whipping inflicted on the prisoners Udai and Khettra in addition to that of imprisonment under section 4, Act VI of 1864, we think that the Sessions Judge's order cannot be sustained.
(2.) No doubt both these prisoners had been previously convicted of dacoity, but these convictions took place at the same sessions, and one day only before the present sentences were passed, and we understand the meaning of the law to be that a sentence of whipping can only be inflicted in addition to other punishment on second convictions of offences specified in section 4 of the Act, which have taken place at some time previous (although after the passing of the Indian Penal Code).
(3.) The object of the law we take to be, that where a person notwithstanding a previous conviction of dacoity and consequent punishment, and after having a locus poenitentiae afforded him, again after completing a previous sentence commits the same offence, he shall be liable to whipping in addition to any sentence of imprisonment awarded. He has, that is to say, been undeterred by imprisonment, and therefore may be punished on the second occasion with stripes in addition.;