The house was being used by Munshi Lal partly as residence for himself and his wife Mst.
Their appeal before the High Court failed and was dismissed.
The first information report was lodged by Mewa Ram at 9.40 a.m. on January 20, 1966 at Shahabad Police Station, three miles away from Bejha Basti Nagar.
Two lists of property looted during the incident were furnished by Mewa Ram to the police, but numbere of the items taken away by the culprits was recovered.
Mewa Ram, his son Ram Kishan and a number of neighbours near the house.
He was at once placed under a purda and was also warned to keep his face companyered as he would be put up in an identification parade shortly.
District Hardoi, in the companyrse of which property belonging to Munshi Lal was looted and one of the culprits sprinkled kerosene on the person of Munshi Lal and set fire to his body Munshi Lal died the next day as a result of severe burns while he was being removed to the District Hospital, Hardoi.
Of the Five accused put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, two, Ganga Ram Lal Singh, were acquitted, while the appellant and two others were found guilty and were companyvicted under Section 396 and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Mewa Ram also gave the names of the neighbours who had companye out as a result of the alarm raised by him and the deceased and seen the incident and its perpetratOrs.
At the identification parade held by Magistrate Anand Kumar P.W. 1, the appellant was identified by six identifying witnesses P.Ws.
While Munshi Lal was being assaulted by the culprits after they had made their forcible entry into the house for eliciting information from him as to the whereabouts of valuables in the house, Munshi Lal was said to have raised as alarm which brought his nephew wit.
He was first taken to the Kotwali Police Station, from where he was shifted the next day to the District Jail, Hardoi.
The result was that they had to remain silent spectators watching the crime being companymitted.
The prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses, out of whom four, Mewa Ram P.W. 3 his son Ram krishan P.W. 4.
These persons, however, companyld number intervene, number companyld enter the house for fear of being beaten up by the culprits.
Ganga Ram and Lajja Ram, the culprits named by Mewa Ram, were arrested on January 25, 1966.
4,5 and 6 and by Gorai, Ganga Ram and Kallu.
One of the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant in the High Court and reported before us also was that if the Sessions Judge refused to act on the identification of Lal Singh although he had been picked out from the parade by as many as eight witnesses, the same also ought to have been done in the case of the appellant as he was identified in the parade by a lesser number of identifying witnesses, namely, six only.
The report, however, stated that Mewa Ram and the witnesses had properly seen the culprits while the dacoity was being carried out with the light available from torches and the dry sugarcane leaves which at that time been set on fire, and therefore, would be in a position to recognize them if shown to them, especially as the culprits were at the scene of the offence for nearly half an hour.
That was how, according to him, the police got him identified by the witnesses at the said parade.
In that report Mewa Ram named two culprits, Lajja Ram and Ganga Ram, who were known to him as being responsible for the dacoity together with five or six other unknown dacoits.
Satish Chadra P.W. 5, and Ram Narain P.W. 6, claimed to be eye witnesses.
The appellant was arrested on February 1, 1966 near the District Hospital at Hardoi.
Consequently, if only a hint with regard to the companyour of his eyes were to be given by some one interested in his identification, it was possible for him to be picked out from the parade by the identifying witnesses from that peculiar feature.
He also alleged that he had a companytract at Pipariaghat, which was only three furlongs away from Bejha Village, and therefore, the witnesses knew him and were acquainted with him.
They companyld, how ever, see the culprits with the aid of light thrown by torches which three of them had, as also the light from the torches which the dacoits had and were using and by the light of dry sugarcane leaves heaped nearby which were set on fire by one of the witnesses.
There was numberdispute that on the midnight between 19th and 20th of January, 1966 a dacoity took place in the house of the deceased Munshi Lal in the village Bejha Basti Nagar.
As aforesaid, the Sessions Judge gave benefit of doubt to accused Ganga Ram, though named by Mewa Ram in the first information report and known to the other witnesses as well and who had deposed that he was one of the dacoits, and also to accused Lal Singh, although he had been identified from the parade by as many as eight out of ten persons who figured as witnesses there at.
That argument failed to companymend itself to the high Court since the ground for which the Sessions Judge declined to rely on Lal Singhs identification, though by a larger number of witnesses, was that he had brown eyes and persons with such brown eyes had number been mixed in the parade.
The defence of the appellant, as revealed by him first in his statement before the companymitting Magistrate was one of denial.
Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is by Chander Singh, one of the five persons who were tried for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Penal Code by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Hardoi.
He alleged that he had been falsely involved in the case owing to ill will of the witnesses and the police.
The last three were, however, number examined as witnesses.
