1957 Supreme(Bom) 68
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vyas D.V. and Shelat J.M. , JJ.
Appellants: Sayyed Husan Sayad Husen and Ors.
Versus
Respondent: The State
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1957
Decided On: 28.03.1957
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.M. Tarkunde and N.D. Dange, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: V.H. Gumaste, Addl. Asst. Govt. Pleader
The correct way of proving contradictions or omissions between witness evidence in Court and police statement is to ask the Police Officer in his evidence whether a particular statement was made by the witness before him.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Dacoity - Ingredients - Proof - Evidence - Appreciation - Contradictions or omissions between witness evidence in Court and police statement - Correct way of proving - Necessity to emphasize.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of dacoity, mischief, and outraging the modesty of a woman. They appealed against their convictions and sentences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offences charged. The court also found that the appellants' sentences were excessive and reduced them.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offences charged. 2. Whether the appellants' sentences were excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offences charged. The court relied on the testimony of the victims and other eyewitnesses, as well as on the circumstantial evidence. 2. The court held that the appellants' sentences were excessive and reduced them. The court took into account the appellants' ages, their lack of criminal records, and the fact that they had already spent some time in jail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellants' appeal against their convictions, but reduced their sentences.
Vyas, JJ.
1. The appellants in this appeal were accused Nos. 1 to 18 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1956 which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, at Jalgaon. They have Been convicted by the learned Judge of an offence under Section 395 and an offence under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the learned Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 of an offence under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has sentenced all the 18 accused persons to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has imposed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment upon all the 18 accused persons. Under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has passed a sentence of 18 months R. I. upon accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18. Besides passing the substantive sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment upon accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 the learned Judge has passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 500 upon accused Nos. 1 and 12, a sentence of fine of Rs. 100 upon accused No. 6 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 upon accused No. 18 under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against this order of convictions and sentences that all the 18 accused persons have appealed and this is that appeal.
2. Before stating the facts of the case, as contended by the prosecution, I may point out that the complainant Raghunath is an old man, 65 years of age, and is a retired school Head Master. He is also a registered Medical practitioner. At the material date he was residing in the village Kurhe. He had been residing there since 7 years or more before the date of this incident which occurred on 24th July 1956. The prosecution witness Yamunabai is a tonsured widow. She was 46 years of age at the date of the incident. She is the grand-daughter of the sister of the complainants father. It may be noted that in the house of the complainant on the material date there were no other inmates except the complainant himself and, Yamunabai.
3. During the course of his money lending business the complainant Raghunath used to purchase movables belonging to the inhabitants of the village Kurhe. As a registered medical practitioner he used to sell tinctures to his patients. He was also doing a small grocery business in his house. According to his evidence, he was possessed of movables purchased by him in the manner stated above from the residents of the village Kurhe, of the value of 4,000/5,000 rupees at the date of the offence. He had also in his possession documents showing that people owed moneys to him to the extent of one thousand rupees. In his house, on the date of the incident, there were certain pension papers and licences also.
4. One incident may be noted before I proceed to state the facts of the case as contended by the prosecution and that incident is that a certain young man of the name of Kashinath Ravji Chaudhari, who was aged only 30 or 32, happened to die some three days before 24th July 1956, the date upon which the incident which is the subject-matter of the prosecution took plate. A rumour went round the village that his death was due to the tinctures winch were said to have been supplied to him by the complainant Raghunath and which were consumed by him. It is necessary to remember this incident because in our view, and also according to the case of the prosecution, it supplies a background to the incident which occurred on 24th July 1956 about noon time.
5. Now, the prosecution story in this case is that on 24th July 1956 Raghunath had his morning meal. Upon that day he intended to go to Bhusaval by bus. So he was proceeding towards the motor stand, his intention being to catch a bus from the motor stand and proceed to Bhusav