Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai, J.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Dhanpat Chamara
Decided On : MAY 06, 1960
CRIMINAL LAW - DAOCITY - PREPARATION AND ASSEMBLY - ARMS ACT - POSSESSION OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION - SEARCH - CORROBORATION - PARTISAN WITNESSES - SECTION 399, 402 PENAL CODE - SECTION 19(F), 20 ARMS ACT - SECTION 51 CR. P. C. - SECTION 125 EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three appeals against acquittals in separate cases arising from the same incident. In Government Appeal No. 11, eleven respondents were charged with assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity under Section 402 of the Penal Code and making preparations to commit dacoity under Section 399. In Government Appeal No. 9, one respondent was charged with possession of a gun and cartridges under Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act. In Government Appeal No. 10, another respondent was charged with possession of a gun and cartridges under the same provisions of the Arms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents had assembled at Pir Asthan with the intention of committing dacoity. The court also found that the respondents had made preparations to commit dacoity by providing themselves with weapons, torches, and implements for house-breaking. The court further found that the respondents were in possession of the arms and ammunition without a license and had concealed them to avoid detection by public servants.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established that the respondents had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity under Section 402 of the Penal Code? 2. Whether the prosecution had established that the respondents had made preparations to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Penal Code? 3. Whether the prosecution had established that the respondents were in possession of arms and ammunition without a license and had concealed them to avoid detection by public servants under Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act? 4. Whether the evidence of partisan witnesses could be accepted without corroboration by independent witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had established that the respondents had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity based on the following circumstances: - The respondents had come to a place several miles away from their houses. - They had provided themselves with weapons of offense and defense, torches, and implements for house-breaking. - They were sitting together at a time when the usual time for committing dacoity was only an hour or two later. 2. The court held that the prosecution had established that the respondents had made preparations to commit dacoity based on the following circumstances: - The respondents had assembled at Pir Asthan with the intention of committing dacoity. - They had provided themselves with weapons, torches, and implements for house-breaking. 3. The court held that the prosecution had established that the respondents were in possession of the arms and ammunition without a license and had concealed them to avoid detection by public servants based on the following circumstances: - The respondents were found in possession of the arms and ammunition without a license. - They had concealed the arms and ammunition in such a manner as to indicate an intention that their possession of them may not be known to a public servant. 4. The court held that the evidence of partisan witnesses could be accepted without corroboration by independent witnesses, but such evidence must be scrutinized with caution and accepted only if found to be reliable.
Final Decision: The court allowed all three appeals and convicted the respondents of the offenses charged. In Government Appeal No. 11, the respondents were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment under both Sections 399 and 402 of the Penal Code, to run concurrently. In Government Appeal No. 9, the respondent was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under both Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act, to run concurrently, with the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Government Appeal No. 11. In Government Appeal No. 10, the respondent was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment under both Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act, to run concurrently, with the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Government Appeal No. 11.
K.Sahai, J.
1. These three appeals have been taken up together because they are concerned with the same incident. There are eleven respondents in Government Appeal No. 11. It arises out of Sessions Case No. 136 of 1957 in which they were all acquitted of charges Under Sec.399 of the Penal Code for having made preparations to commit a dacoity and Under Sec. 402 for assembling for the purpose of committing a dacoity. Dhanpat Chamar, one of those respondents, is the only respondent in Government Appeal No. 9. This appeal is directed against Dhanpats acquittal in Sessions Case No. 105 of 1957 in which he was charged for offences Under Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Indian Arms Act for having been found to be in possession of one D.B.B.L, gun in working order and four live cartridges. Brahmadeo Mandal. the only respondent in Government Appeal No. 10, is also one of the respondents in Government Appeal No. 11. In Sessions Case No. 106 of 1957, he was charged Under Sections 19(f) and 20 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made shot gun in working order and four live cartridges. Government Appeal No. 10 has been filed against his acquittal in that case.
2. **************
3. **************
4. **************
5. ************.
6. The defence of a respondent Sibu Mandal or Sibu Gangota is that he was arrested at about 9.30 P. M. near the Clock Tower in Bhagalpur town. The defence of respondents Dhanpat, Wokil Singh, Ram Lakhan Tanti, Suraj Narain Tanti, Kishun Tanti, Chunchun Rabidas, Singheshwar Chamar and Chamru Pasi is that they were arrested at different places at different times varying from 5 to 7 P. M. Respondents Brahmadeo and Sukhdeo have not given the time of their arrest.
7. The principles which have to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal are well-known and well-established. While this Court can review the evidence for itself in such an appeal, it is extremely reluctant to interfere with a judgment of acquittal. I cannot do better than to quote the words 6f S. K. Das, J. in Balbir Singh V. State of Punjab, (S) -- :
It is now well settled that though the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused person is further reinforced by Ms acquittal by the trial Court and the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration; and the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses must also be kept in mind, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the appellate Court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial judge.
8. The learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. Prem Shankar Sahay, who has appeared before me on behalf of the respondents, have painstakingly taken me through the entire evidence and the judgments in the three cases, and I have carefully perused them, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, The conclusion which I have reached is that there has been a failure of justice in this case because the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who tried all the three cases, got so engrossed with trifles that he failed to consider the evidence from broad aspects. Although he had to hold that the raiding party that was organised by the D.S.P. did go to the Pir Asthan and arrested some dacoits", he referred to some minor discrepancies and some improbabilities in order to hold that the prosecution case had not been established. In the words of Mahajan J. in Abdul Gani V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh -- , "he made no effort to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff but took an easy course and after holding the evidence discrepant held that the whole case was untrue." Indeed, I do not think that any part of the evidence which has been adduced in this case on behalf of the pr
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
