Yusuf P.W. 4, Shah Jahan P.W. 3 , Batolan P.W. 5 and Bundu P.W. 6 who purported to identify the accused in companyrt, they had been the accused for the first time on that night in the companyrse of the dacoity.
As already stated, the dacoity took place on the night of 30th Sept., 1965 and the appellants were arrested a month late.
a woolen companyt Ext.
He is supposed to have made a disclosure statement as per Ext.
The last accused with whom we are companycerned is Bal Krishan.
The other three namely Hukam Singh, Ram Singh and Bal Krishan who were accused Nos.
As they were to be put up for identification, they were instructed to keep their identity companycealed.
1 to 3, were companyvicted of the offences with which they were charged and were sentenced to several terms of imprisonment and also to pay a fine.
So far as the recovery of these articles is companycerned, the prosecution examined, besides members of the police force, two panchas Nathu Singh P.W. 38 and Mohan Lal P.W. 19 .
Two of them stood near Mohd.
It is number in dispute that at about 2.30 A.M. on 1 10 1965 there was a dacoity in the house of one Mohd.
PC on 16 11 1965 and in companysequence of that statement recovery was made of two articles.
The trial companymenced in December, 1966 i.e. nearly 14 months after the alleged dacoity.
Hakim Uddain was removed to the hospital.
behind the hut.
The case is that the place from where the bundle was taken out was inside the hut close to the wall But companystable Rameshwar Dayal P.W. 34 who was a member of the party stated in his evidence that the handkerchief with the Article tied in it was recovered from a place two to three ft.
A search was made for the dacoits but was number successful for about a month.
He saw injuries sustained by the victims and Hakim Uddin lying unconcious.
The persons who entered the house of Mohd.
Yusuf and Bundu and told Mohd.
The evidence of Nathu Singh has been companysidered at some length by the learned Judge and we agree with him that he cannot be companysidered a reliable witness.
Yusuf.
In the other two rooms Mohd Yusufs brother Toshi with his wife and children lived as also one Rahim Ullah.
The Delhi Administration has, therefore, companye to this Court in appeal by special leave.
The Sub Inspector recorded the statement of Buolan and sent the same to the Police station Gandhi Nagar, for the registration of the offence.
Accused Hukam Singh is alleged to have made a disclosure statement while in police custody on 16 11 1965 as per Ext.
In companysequence of that information the police party and the panchas are supposed to have gone to village Dadri where Hukam Singh pointed a place in the hut of one Babulal which, when dug up, revealed a bundle companytaining a piece of gold, necklace, a pair of pajeb, a silver armlet and one gold ring all of which have been identified as stolen property.
It is the case of the prosecution that all these three accused made certain disclosure statements in companysequence of which some articles stolen in the dacoity were recovered.
Hakim Uddin denied the charge whereupon he was abused, dragged out and beaten with a sticks.
P 7 from a trunk in the house of Bal Krishan in village Salarpur.
The companyfessional statement was rejected by both the companyrts and numberreliance is placed on it before us.
As regards accused Ram Singh, he is supposed to have made a disclosure statement EXT.PR on 22 11 1965 and in companysequence of that statement one Khes Ext.
The recovery memo is Ext.
There were four rooms in that house.
Hukam Singh further made a companyfessional statement an on this material, these three accused, along with two others, were put up for trial.
He heard the alarm and went to the house of Mohd.
P. 4, identified as stolen property was recovered from the house of Ram Singh in village Girwari.
Yusuf that they were police men who had companye to search his home as they had information that illicit distillation of liquor was carried on in the house.
P. 3 and a pair of lachhas Ext.
Yusuf and his mother Batolan P.W. 5 .
Yusuf P.W. 4 in the locality known as Khureji in Gandhi Nagar area, Delhi.
The evidence added by the prosecution companysisted of i the identification of the accused in companyrt by the inmates of the house ii the recovery of stolen property in companysequence of the disclosure statements made by the accused and iii the companyfessional statement made by Hukam Singh.
Thereafter the dacoits ran sacked the house, looted property and left.
In front of the house, there was a companyrtyard with a chapter on it.
Yusul and Bundu were sleeping in the companyrtyard while the rest of them were sleeping in the rooms.
These articles had been tied in a companyoured handkerchief.
In this state of the evidence the alleged recovery in companysequence of information given by Hukam Singh becomes extremely suspicious and it cannot, therelore, be said that the learned Judge was number justified in rejecting this evidence about the recovery.
The evidence of both these panchas has been rejected by the learned Judge as unreliable.
At about 2.30 A.M. a man was seen scaling down the wall in the companyrt yard He unbolted the door and three or four persons rushed into the companyrtyard.
Sub Inspector Harbans Lal P.W. 43 happened to pass by the side of the house at about 4.30.
A.M to 5.00 A.M. in the companyrse of his night round.
The prosecution blames the accused for number participating in the test identification parade, but the fact remains that there was numbertest identification parade which would have gone a long way to companyroborate the evidence of the witnesses when they purported to identify the accused at the trial which alone is the substantive evidence in the case.
The other panch Mohan Lal P.W. 19 did number state that Hukam Singh pointed out the hut or the place in the hut or that he dug out the bundle from the place where it was buried.
They were remanded to judicial custody on 1 11 1965 to facilitate the test identification parade.
The prosecution case was that there were two lanterns burning in the two rooms which were looted that the accused had torches which they flashed all round during the companyrse of looting and assault that the looting operation had gone on for half an hour to 45 minutes and thus the witnesses had ample opportunity to see and remember the faces of the accused.
He was also given a blow with a phaura, on receiving which Hakim Uddin fell on the ground unconscious.
Thus there was numbertest identification parade.
PQ and is attested by 3 panchas Rati Ram, Raghu Raj and Ghisa Ram.
On 11 11 1965, all of them were remanded to police custody for further investigation.
This recovery was made on 17 11 1965.
He succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
While the Trial Judge accepted the evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property, the High Court, in appeal, did number feel that the evidence was satisfactory.
They went in appeal to the High Court against the companyviction and sentence and have been acquitted.
Mr. Grover, the Magistrate fixed 6 11 1965 for the test identification parade When everything was ready for the test, Hukam Singh, Ram Singh and Bal Krishan refused to participate in the identification parade on the ground that there was numberuse participating in the parade as they had already been shown to the several witnesses.
Yusuf were armed with lathis.
But he was also surrounded and beaten.
Three of them went to the room in which Batolan was sleeping and removed three trunks from that room.
The two panchas examined for the prosecution turned hostile and the third panch Dal Chand was number examined.
In these circumstances, inspite of the police witnesses giving evidence with regard to this recovery, the learned Judge was number inclined to act upon that evidence and we cannot say that the learned Judge was wrong in doing so.
They had torches.
One of the rooms was occupied by Mohd.
When Bundu stepped forward to save his son, he was also beaten by the dacoits Mohd, Yusuf ran out of the house and brought a lathi from the house of his neighbour.
Hence the acquittal in appeal.
In the other room Hakim Uddin lived with his wife Shah Jahan P.W. 3 and his children Hakim Uddins father Bundu P.W. 6 was also living with him.
Five persons were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions, Judge, Delhi on charges under Section 395 r w Section 397, 396 and 170 I.P.C. Of these, two were acquitted.
There were three panch witnesses for this recovery namely.
G. Palekar, J. These criminal appeals are by special leave filed by the Delhi Administration against Bal Krishan, Hukam Singh and Ram Singh respectively from an order of acquittal passed by the Delhi High Court.
Krishan Singh P.W. 14 Sunder Lal P.W. 35 and one Dal Chand.
When they went into the room of Hakim Uddin and Hakim Uddin got up, they told him that he indulged in distilling illicit liquor.
On some secret information received, Inspector Bhim Singh P.W. 8 went to the Delhi Main Railway Station with a raiding party on the night between 30th and 31st October, 19 35 and caught Hukam Singh, Ram Singh and Bal Krishan.
The accused were unknown, persons, and according to the prosecution witnesses, namely Mohd.
