1959 Supreme(All) 91

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. R. James and S. K. Verma, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. - Appellant
Versus
RANDHIR SRI CHAND - Respondents
Govt. Appeal 1949 Of 1957
Decided On : 04/20/1959

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - DA-COITY - PREPARATION AND ASSEMBLY - EVIDENCE - INFERENCE FROM CIRCUMSTANCES - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106, EVIDENCE ACT - ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION BY ACCUSED - SECTION 399 AND 402, PENAL CODE.

Fact of the Case:

Six respondents were arrested at Lisari Gate, Meerut, while travelling in a tonga. They were found in possession of illicit firearms and electric torches. The prosecution alleged that they had made preparations for and assembled for committing dacoity in Paswara village. The trial court acquitted the respondents of the charges under Sections 399 and 402, Penal Code, but convicted them under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act for possession of unlicensed firearms.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the respondents under Sections 399 and 402, Penal Code. The court held that the circumstantial evidence against the respondents was sufficient to establish that they had prepared for and assembled for committing dacoity. The court also held that the respondents had failed to discharge the statutory burden cast on them by Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain their possession of illicit firearms and their presence at Lisari Gate.

Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence against the respondents was sufficient to establish that they had prepared for and assembled for committing dacoity? 2. Whether the respondents had discharged the statutory burden cast on them by Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain their possession of illicit firearms and their presence at Lisari Gate?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence against the respondents was sufficient to establish that they had prepared for and assembled for committing dacoity. The court considered the following circumstances: a. The respondents hailed from distant places and had no apparent connection with each other. b. They were caught at Lisari Gate travelling together in a hired tonga, which had been hired for taking them to Hasanpur, close to Paswara, and had to await their return. c. They were found in possession of electric torches and illicit firearms, the firearms of Randhir and Ram Narain being particularly dangerous. d. They resisted their capture by the police. e. Earlier, two of them were found loitering near Raghubir Singh's house in Paswara, and when questioned, slinked away without reply. f. They failed to discharge the statutory burden cast on them by Section 106, Evidence Act. g. They gave no explanation, or gave a false explanation, of the facts proved against them. The court held that these circumstances were not explainable on any other hypothesis except that the respondents were going to commit dacoity. 2. The court held that the respondents had failed to discharge the statutory burden cast on them by Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain their possession of illicit firearms and their presence at Lisari Gate. The court noted that the respondents had not given any explanation for their possession of the firearms or for their presence at Lisari Gate, and that they had falsely denied their arrest at Lisari Gate. The court held that this failure to explain the circumstances against them was itself an additional piece of circumstantial evidence against them.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the State's appeal and convicted the respondents under Sections 399 and 402, Penal Code. The court sentenced each of the respondents to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 399, Penal Code, and to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 402, Penal Code, the two sentences to run concurrently.