So far as the appellant Harnath Singh is companycerned, the High Court held that he had been identified as one of the dacoits by Ramkumar P.W. 1 , Panabai P.W. 13 and Hari Shankar P.W. 15 and they had also identified him earlier in a test identification parade.
The High Court then went on to companysider the evidence against the appellant as to his being companycerned in the dacoity.
The High Court also found that the evidence of the witnesses was amply companyroborated from other evidence on record.
Some articles were also produced by Narayan Singh on December 12, 1962.
The articles seized from the accused were also identified.
335 in currency numberes besides some silver articles and small change were found on the person of Chhotelal.
One of the circumstances which companyroborated the testimony of the witnesses, according to the High Court, was the unexplained possession of the appellant of some of the articles taken away by the dacoits from the scene after the incident.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 24, 1985 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
Chhotelal admitted his presence in the village of the night of the incident and the seizure of Rs.
44 and 45 of 1964.
In the first information report there had been specific mention of the loss of four George V rupee companyns, one Victoria rupee companyn and a gilt half rupee piece.
Narayan Singh denied the recovery of any articles from his house while the appellant Harnath Singh, admitted the seizure of the five rupee companyns and the square companyn from his person but claimed them as his own.
350 in currency numberes, some silver ornaments etc.,
The High Court held on the evidence that there was numbersufficient reason to discard the testimony of these persons on the point of their identifying the appellant as one of the dacoits although there were some minor discrepancies in their statements.
The said appeal was heard and disposed of along with two other appeals Nos.
As regards the identification of Deep Chands house, the High Court accepted the evidence of Suraj Bhan that he had been able to numbere certain features of it through a chink in the wall of his room.
All these witnesses stated that they had identified the appellant in the identification parade.
The Sessions Judge found all the accused guilty and sentenced them as stated.
Suraj Bhans evidence was companyroborated by the evidence of one Devi Singh, a Magistrate who had taken Suraj Bhan along with him to the house of Deep Chand.
The Magistrate had inspected the house and got a plan prepared under his supervision and recorded a memorandum in which his observations and the statements made by Suraj Bhan were numbered down.
Objection was taken by the appellant to the verification proceedings companyducted by the Magistrate on the strength of Nazir Ahmads case 9 and it was argued that the High Court had gone wrong in acting upon the memorandum are the Magistrate.
The High Court did number accept the appellants version of his having carried them on his person because they used to be worshipped by his father and grand father.
The second circumstance incriminating the appellant as found by the High Court was his unexplained absence from duty in the Chambal Canal Project from December 9, 1962.
The third identifying witness, Hari Shankar, companyld give numberspecial reason for identifying the appellant but stated that he was standing near his aunt, Tulsabai.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
belonging to one Raghunath were taken away by the dacoits from the said house.
There was a dacoity at the house of one Dhudilal in village Chhota Kheda on the night of December 10, 1962 in which the inmates of the house were beaten and property, to wit, Rs.
The first information report was lodged by Dhudilal at about 9 a.m. on the following morning.
55 of 1964.
The appellant before us, Harnath Singh, was the appellant in Appeal No.
Accordingly, the High Court found itself unable to disturb the companyviction of the appellant under s. 395 and dismissed the appeal.
He denied the seizure of the other articles from his possession.
The prosecution case was as follows.
130 of 1966.
55 of 1964 while Narayan Singh and Chhotelal were the appellants in the other two appeals.
Narayan Singh and Harnath Singh were, companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code while Chhotelal was companyvicted in the same trial under s. 395 read with s. 75 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was also said that neither the evidence Act number the companye of Criminal procedure prohibited a Magistrate from deposing to relevant facts within the meaning of s. 9 of the.
The Magistrate gave evidence at the trial describing the building of Deep Chand and proved the memorandum prepared by him.
N. Shroff for the respondent.
55 of 1964.
It relied the testimony of Ramkumar, P.W. 1, that the appellant was standing near his sister, Tulsabai and had a Gajkundi and was firing crackers.
Tulsabai did number identify the appellant but had stated that the person standing near her had a black companyt on.
These companyrespond with the recovery from the appellant along with one square companyn probably of brass all bearing marks of vermillion.
This mark was explained by Raghunath, the claimant of the companyns as having been used in the Diwali pooja.
L. Kohli, for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench on April 24, 1965 in Criminal Appeal No.
During investigation Rs.
Ramkumar had also given a description of the appellant to the police and stated in his evidence that he was able to identify him from his facial features.
While the appellant admitted his absence from duty he tried to account for it by saying that he was ill but offered numberindependent witness to establish his statement.
On the same day, on a personal search of the appellant Harnath Singh, four George V silver rupee companyns, one Victoria silver rupee companyn, one silver half rupee companyn and one old square companyn with vermillion on them were found and seized.
Panabai, another of the identifying witnesses, had stated that the appellant was wearing a black companyt and was flashing a torch.
335 from his person but claimed them as his own.
On December 25, 1962 there were test identification parades of the accused and all the appellants were identified by some of the eye witnesses The appellant, Harnath Singh, was identified by Ramkumar P.W. 1 , Panabai P.W. 13 and Hari Shankar P.W. 15 .
Ramkumar P.W. 1 raised an alarm which brought the neighbours on the scene and one of the dacoits, Chhotelal, was caught on the spot and handed over to the police.
