JUDGMENT

Scott-Smith, J. - On the night between the 29th and 30th January 1922 a dacoity was committed in the house of Zaman Ali in Dhok Bangial in the Rawalpindi District. In the course of this dacoity one of Zaman Ali's ribs was broken with a blow by one of the dacoits. In connection with this, seven persons were committed to take their trial before the Sessions Judge of Rawalpindi. Out of these he convicted six viz Sain Bak, Mardana, Ilahia, Karm Ilahi, Bak and Fatteh Khan, under S 395 read with Section 397, Iadian Penal Code. The 7th accused Dina was acquitted. In the First Information Report the names of three accused persona, Ilahia, Mardana and Dina, were given by Zaman Ali as having been identified. He, his wife Mt. Baggo and Niaz Ali, his step-son, gave evidence at the trial that they had identified them. The Sessions Judge, however, was of opinion for reasons fully given by him in his judgment that it would not be safe is this case to convict any of the accused persons upon the uncorroborated evidence of the eye-witnesses. In regard to all the accused, except Dina, articles of property stolen in the dacoity' were either found in their possession or in the possession of persons to whom they had handed them over. All the accused produced such articles from various places or gave information which led to their recovery. No property was found in the possession of Dina nor did he give any information which led to the recovery of any. Sain Bak, Ilahia and Karam Ilahi have filed a joint appeal through Mr, Rustomji, Advocate, ana Mardana, Bak and Fatteh Khan have appealed through the Jail Authorities. Bak, in view of the fact that he had three previous convictions against him, was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment; the Other five appellants were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. The learned Sessions Judge found that it was not proved which of the appellants had given Zaman Ali the blow which fractured his rib, but he was of opinion, having regard to the decision of the Chief Court reported as Crown v. Mohna [1901] 16 P.R. 1901 Cr., that he could not pass a sentence of less than seven years' rigorous imprisonment upon any of the accused.

2. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is a very careful and elaborate one and deals in full detail with the various articles of property traced to each of the appellants. Mr. Rustomji in arguing the case for his clients has shown no reason whatever why I should reject any of the evidence as to identification of the property which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and by the Assessors In regard to the evidence of Sukhdial and Sant Singh goldsmiths, he says that it is very easy to produce" such evidence, but he gives no reason why these two witnesses should be regarded as unreliable. The appellants produced either no defence evidence at all or produced evidence of a worthless character and the learned Advocate for the three appellants has not asked me to accept any of the defence evidence. In my opinion the decision of the learned Sessions Judge as regards the six persons whom he has convicted is fully warranted by the evidence detailed in his judgment.

3. In Crown v. Mohra [1901] 16 P.R. 1901 Cr. it was certainly held that all persons taking part in a robbery or dacoity are liable to the minimum sentence laid down in Section 397 if grievous hurt is caused by only one of them. In that case the Judges referred, to Queen Empress v. Mahabir Tiwari (), but that ruling was specially dissented from in Queen-Empress v. Santok Singh [1898] A.W.N. 186 reported in Weekly Notes, N.WP. of 1899 at page 186. The Madras High Court has taken a similar view. I am not aware of any reported cases of the Punjab Chief Court or of the High Court in which the view expressed in Crown v. Mohra [1901] 16 P.R. 1901 Cr. has been dissented from, but it is a fact that that view is notnow-a-days followedin this Court and I do not agree with it. I fully concur in the reasonin