At the time of companymitting the dacoity the dacoits broke open the door of the house with the cross bar of a plough.
The facts found by the Court of Session for companyvicting the appellants were that, on the night between 11th and 12th May, 1962, between 1 and 2 a.m., the appellants, along with about 12 or 13 others, companymitted dacoity in the house of I Tenu Arjya.
Thereafter, the appeal of Iman Ali was heard and both the appellants were heard in respect of the show cause numberices issued to them, Opportunity was, in addition, offered to Jogesh Chandra Arjya to urge whatever companyld be said on his behalf against his companyviction also.
Thereupon, both of them sought special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The companymission of this offence in the manner described above was held by the Sessions Court to be proved on the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution, and, thereupon, finding both the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under s. 396, P.C., that companyrt sentenced each of these appellants to imprisonment for life.
Four dacoits, including the two appellants, entered the house, while the remaining persons remained standing outside.
Thereafter, the dacoits demanded money from Hari Charan Arjya, the son of the two deceased persons.
They took away a sum of Rs.
Both Golapi and her husband Tenu Arjya fell down dead.
Both the appellants Sought leave, from the High Court to appeal to this Court, but leave was refused.
The High Court affirmed the findings of fact of the Court of Session and enhanced the sentence of both these appellants, so that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life ,as altered to sentence of death, with the direction that they be hanged by the neck till they are dead.
Iman Ali appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Assam and Nagaland.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 30, 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High, Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Judges of the High Court, on perusing the judgment, were of the prima facie opinion that, if the companyviction of Iman Ali was to be upheld, there was numberjustification for number awarding to him the sentence of death and, companysequently, they issued numberice to Iman Ali to show cause why the sentence should number be enhanced.
was shot at with a gun by Iman Ali appellant, and then the other appellant Jogesh Chandra Arjya shot Tenu Arjya.
Rajendra Chaudhuri, for the appellants, Naunit Lal, for the respondent, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellants, Iman Ali and Jogesh Chandra Arjya, were companyvicted by the Court of Session for an, offence punishable under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
As soon, as the door was broken, Golapi, the wife of Tenu Arjya.
115 of 1964.
At the same time, a numberice was also issued to, the other appellant Jogesh Chandra Arjya by the learned Judges suo motu to show cause why his sentence should also number be enhanced to sentence of death.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1967.
There was clear finding by the 1 1954 S.C.R. 145 at p. 156.
2,500/ which was kept in a quilt and also removed the gold ear rings, one silver necklace and one waist band from the person of Golapi.
