Confirmation of conviction for dacoity and enhancement of sentence based on the adequacy of the evidence and the severity of the offence.

1. In Sessions Trial No. 160 of 1961, held in the Court of the 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Arrah, Banaila Dome was put on trial on a charge under Ss. 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions fudge by his judgement and order, dated the 20th December 1961, convicted Banaila Dome for the offence under S. S95 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The learned trial Judge held that the charge under S. 397 of the Indian Penal Code failed, and, in the result, he acquitted Banaila Dome of that charge.

2. By the order of this Court, dated the 14th of February 1962, notice was issued to Banaila Dome, the opposite-party, to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced if his conviction is upheld. Banaila Doma has not sent any show cause petition from the jail nor has he appeared in this Court through any lawyer. Learned counsel appearing for the State took us through the judgement of the trial Court.

3. According to the prosecution case, in the night between 13th and 14th February 1961, a dacoity was committed in the house of Harihar Ahir (P.W. 1) in village Bharasara, police station Behia, in the district of Shahabad. Banaila Dome was identified at the time of dacoity by two persons, namely, Harihar (P.W. 1) and Ramdhani Ahir (P.W. 5). It was alleged that Banaila Dome inflicted a bhala blow on Harihar (P.W. 1). In the test identification parade held on the 4th of April 1961, Banaila Dome was identified by Harihar Ahir (P.W. 1) and Ramdhani Ahir (P.W. 5). The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on a consideration of the evidence on record held that on the night in question a dacoity was committed in the house of Harihar Ahir, as alleged by the prosecution, in which two boxes and some ornaments of the ladies were removed. The learned trial Judge further held that Banaila Dome was identified at the time of the commission of the dacoity. He acquitted him of the charge under S. 397 of the Indian Penal Code because the doctor found only such injuries on the person of P.W. 1 which were likely to have been caused by hard blunt substance.

4. We have looked into the evidence ourselves and we are satisfied that Banaila Doma was rightly convicted for the offence under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It, however, appears to us that the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment for an offence of dacoity is inadequate. In our opinion, on the facts of the case the proper sentence ought to be eight years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, we confirm the order of conviction passed against Banaila Dome under S. 395 of the Indian Penal Code, but enhance the sentence from five years rigorous imprisonment to sight years rigorous imprisonment.

5. In the result, the rule is male absolute and the sentence is enhanced as stated above.