The judgment established the importance of corroborating evidence in conspiracy cases and highlighted the need for revision of the notifications under Section 269(1), Criminal P.C.

JUDGMENT

Rau, J. - The appellants in this case, Nural Amin, Gannu Meah and Kabir Ahmad, were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Chittagong (1) of an offence u/s 436/34, I.P.C. and (2) of an offence u/s 120-B, I.P.C., the trial of the former being by jury and the latter with the aid of the same jurors as assessors. Briefly, the prosecution story is that the appellants and others (1) in furtherance of the common object of all, committed mischief by fire by setting fire to certain timber shop on 7th February 1938 and (2) agreed with one another to do an illegal act, viz. to cheat various Insurance Companies by (a) causing the aforesaid shop to be burnt down, and (b) obtaining money from the Insurance Companies on fraudulent misrepresentations as to the cause of the fire and the amount of the damage done. To deal with the second charge first. The evidence against the appellants consists mainly of the statements of the approver P.W. 14, Furrok Ahmed, and P.Ws. 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 36 and 40.

2. The approver P.W. 14 states that one day, some time before the occurrence, Nural Amin took him to the shop of Amir Ali (P.W. 15) and there talked to him about setting fire to the shops and getting the insurance money. Then on the date of the occurrence itself, Nural Amin's brother Eshaque took witness to Nural Amin's shop, where appellants Gannu Meah and Kabir Ahmad and others were already assembled. Some time later, Nural Amin arrived with two tins of petrol. Then, after the party had had some tea, Nural Amin said : "I had spoken to you of insurance before. Today the shop-houses are to be 'burnt down." Witness at first refused to help, but was prevailed upon by Gannu Meah and Kabir Ahmad. So, witness Eshaque and some others went first to Gannu Meah's shop, then to Kabir Ahmad's shop, and then to various other shops, in each of which they tied some kerosene-soaked gunny bags to beams and rafters and also spread some over the timber. Witness then returned to Gannu Meah's shop, where after a while, Nural Amin, Gannu Meah, Kabir Ahmad and others arrived by car. All of them inspected the gunny bags and other arrangements and asked witness and others to pour petrol over the timber, which they did in Gannu Meah's shop and other shops. Finally, witness and Eshaque set fire to the shop of Haji Amin Shariff, while others did the same to Gannu Meah's shop.

3. This story has been amply corroborated by other testimony. We have first of all the important and significant circumstances that successive shops of Nural Amin, each of them insured, have been burnt down in 1935, 1936 and now in 1938. P.W. 9, Nanuram Tewari, speaks to the events of 1935, when Nural Amin got Rs. 589-8-0 from the New Zealand Insurance Company on account of loss by fire. P.W. 11, Jitendra Nath Sen, speaks to the fire of 1936 when Nural Amin got Rs. 9500 from Lloyds. The shop burnt down on the present occasion was also insured with Lloyds. These successive fires indicate, as indeed has been said in Illus. (a) to Section 15, Evidence Act, that they were not accidental but part of a design in which Nural Amin must necessarily have had a share.

4. Secondly, we have the evidence of P.W. 15 Amir Ali who says that six or seven days before the occurrence the appellants and others were at his tea stall and talked about setting fire to their insured shops. The mere fact that this witness did not reveal his knowledge of the intended crime to the proper authorities is not sufficient to make him an accessory or accomplice so as to vitiate his evidence, which certainly goes to show that all the appellants (amongst others) were in the conspiracy. (The judgment then discussed the evidence and proceeded.) All this amounts to a mass of corroboration by proof of conduct before the fire, at the fire and after the fire, which might indeed have justified a conviction of the appellants, even apart from the statements of the approver. The assessors and the learned Assistant Sessions