MONORANJAN BHATTACHARJYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case five accused persons were tried before Commissioners appointed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, upon a charge that on 14 March 1932, they committed a dacoity in Charmaguria Post Office and that in the course of committing that dacoity jointly a murder was committed by which one Tahir lost his life. All the accused were charged under Section 396, I.P.C., and the accused Monoranjan was also charged under Secs.302 and 326, I.P.C., and Section 19-F, Arms Act. The alleged ocurrence having; taken place in March the trial was held in the mon May, following.

(2.) It appears that the prosecution case is this: that very shortly after three o clock in the afternoon five persons came into the Charmaguria Post Office. Two of them carried revolvers, one large and one small and another carrying a dagger. The men with revolvers pointed their weapons at the Post Master who had with him in the room some four or five assistants and one outsider named Anath Chatterji. Under threat of these revolvers the Post master gave up keys and, to cut a long story short, the contents of the Post Office were rifled and one of the sounders of the telegraph apparatus was dismantled. One of the accused, namely,. Monoranjan is said to have waited outside the northern door of the Post Office with a revolver as soon as the looting began. It does not appear from the evidence that he re-entered the Post Office again. Another of them, Surendra, who was a person of the age of 30 and apparently the oldest of the accused is said to have threatened the Post; Office staff that they were not to give any evidence as to what had taken place. Now, these people having left the Post Office went down a road with their booty and were chased by the members of the staff who had the advantage, as the chase proceeded, of the assistance of a good number of villagers. The dacoits were walking quickly and from time to time in the course of the pursuit fired back at their pursuers without hitting any one. The path which they chose lay over a khal and finally ended in a field. By this time a large number of men were pursuing and the pursuers were throwing clods of hard earth on the dacoits, At this stage it appears one of the accused men fell down and a villager called Tahir ran up and seized him; and it is said that Monoranjan who was in front of the man who had fallen down turned back and stabbed Tahir on the back as he was grappling with the man whom he had seized and Tahir died almost immediately thereafter. Thereafter the man who had fallen down and Monoranjan continued their flight. Soon afterwards, a postal, employee called Lalit ran up and seized one of the dacoits and the same man, the accused Monoranjau, who had stabbed Tahir came and stabbed Lalit on the back. Lalit was very dangerously wounded. The learned Commissioners described him as hovering between life and death; but ultimately ho recovered. The five accused persons wore overpowered and were taken either to the hospital or to the thana according to their condition.

(3.) On this appeal it could not be and has not boon contended before us that these five accused persons were not the persons arrested in that field and it has not been contended before us that any one of them was not present at the time of the commission of the dacoity. So far the case is amply proved and this simplifies our task very much. I propose to deal with the three points which have been placed before us. First of all on behalf of Monoranjan, Mr. Chatterji, while not disputing that he took part in the dacoity, desired to dispute that he was the man who gave the fatal stab to Tahir. The second point which has be8n indicated to us is this: It is said that if Monoranjan or any other member of this party did stab Tahir and did murder him that was not a murder committed in the course of the dacoity, or to use the exact language of Section 396, "in so committing the dacoity." The third question which has been indicated in respect of each is the question of sentence.