The court interpreted Section 32 of the U. P. Children Act and held that a child offender who is 12 years of age or upwards can be sentenced to imprisonment when the Court certifies that he is of so unruly or depraved a character that he is not fit to be sent to an approved school and that none of the other methods in which the case may legally be dealt with is suitable.

Ali Raza and Peer Ali appellants have been convicted for the offence of dacoity puninshable under Section 395, IPC by the lit Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich. Ali Raza appellant, has been ordered to be kept in safe custody under Section 32 of the U. P. Children Act instead of being sentenced to imprisionment. Peer Ali, -appellant has been sentenced to ten years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo rigorous impri sonment for one year.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on the night between 20/21-2-1979 at about midnight 18 or 20 dacoits armed with lathis and country-made pistols raided the house of Ahmad informant in village Bahadur Purwa, P. S. Nanpara, district Bahraich, they committed dacoity there. The dacoits were carrying electric torches and were flashing them Ahmad and other inmates of the house raised alarm whereupon several persons of toe village arrived. The rescuers made an attempt to apprehend the dacoits whereupon marpit took place. One dacoit died on the spot and Ali Raza and Peer Ali were captured on the spot. Other dacoits succeeded in making their escape good alongwith the booty.

3. Ahmad lodged the FIR of the incident on 21-2-1979 at 6. 35 p. m. at P. S. Nanpara, which is at a distance of about four miles from the place of incident. On that report a case under Sections 395/397, I. P. C. was regis tered Ali Raza and Peer Ali were taken to P. S. Nanpara and they were handed over there to the police. The case was investigated and the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and some others.

4. On behalf of the prosecution Ahmad, P. W. 1, Bechan P. W. 2, Raunaq Ali, P. W. 3, Ishaq Ali, P. W. 4 and Abdul Majeed P. W. 5 were examined as witnesses of the occurrence. The evidence of other witnesses was a formal nature. Ali Raza and Peer Ali stated in defence that they have been falsely

implicated on account of enmity with police. Ali Raza further stated that Khaibar barbar of village Kheshwapur is his Khalu. He had gone to see Khaibar. Ahmad and others apprehended him from the place of his relation Khaibar and implicated him in the case. Peer Ali stated that Tahir, resdent of village Bahadurpurwa is his Sarhu. He hid gone to see his relation Tahir. The village people apprehended him on suspicion and got him implicated in the case. The appellants did not give any evidence in defence,

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the statements of the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Feeling dissatisfied with it the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the appellants were among the dacoits who committed dacoity at the house of Ahmad on the relevant night and they are guilty for the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395, I. P. C. In my opinion he did not rightly assail the finding of the trial Court on this point, Trie reason is that Ahmad, P. W. 1, Bechan, P. W. 2, Raunaq Ali, P. W. 3, Ishaq Ali, P. W. 4 and Abdul Majid, P. W. 5 made consistent statement that Ali Raza and Peer Ali appellants were among the dacoits who were responsible for the dacoity at the house of Ahmad and they were captured by the village people on the spot. The appellants did not give any evidence in support of their defence that they were captured on mere suspicion. They did not even pray to examine their so-called relations to support their version. The suggestion made on their behalf in cross-examination of the witnesses that they were among the rescuers and chased the dacoits itself shows that they were present near the place of incident at the time of dacoity. Die prosecution witnesses had no motive to make false statements against the appellants. There is nothing in their cross- examination to indicate that they were making false statements about the appellants. The evidence led on behalf of the prosecution, therefore, fully proved that Ali Raza and