The reasons which weighed with the High Court in acquitting the accused persons other than Nanhey are these.
The High Court disbelieved the evidence of recovery of the looted articles from Nanhey and Mohd.
Bahar Husain P.W. 1 on cross examination failed to give any details of the articles said to have been looted though the first information report lodged by him, as already stated, companytains minute description of all these things.
The report companytains a detailed description of the articles alleged to have been looted.
Having recorded the findings summarized above, the High Court thought that the case of Nan hey stood on a different footing.
One of the alleged eye witnesses stated that Nanhey was seen standing on the roof of Bahar Husains house firing from a gun.
Three persons, Nanhey, Kallo alias Kalian and Mohammed Yameen were tried in companynection with the crime and were companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur, under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and each sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
The High Court disbelieved the testimony of the witnesses who spoke about the recovery of the looted articles from Nanhey.
According to the ballistic expert, one of these cartridges was fired from the gun stated to have been recovered from Nanhey about the other, the expert was unable to express any definite opinion.
Further, before the companymitting Magistrate he had stated that the first information report was prepared at 11 A.M. but the prosecution case is that it was lodged at 5 A.M. The High Court therefore agreed with the defence companytention that the first information report was prepared with the help of the police much later than its stated hour.
Nanhey and Mohammed Yameen are alleged to have been arrested sometime after 5 A.M. on the morning of the 20th August.
Yameen and held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the articles were really looted during the dacoity.
The High Court also observed that in the circumstances the prosecution case appears to have been companycocted.
Nanhey has preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
The reason why an exception was made in the case of Nanhey appears to be as follows.
Another person named Chhaiju was companyvicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The High Court did number also find it possible to accept that the prosecution witnesses had been able to recognise Nanhey, Mohammed Yameen and Kallo among the dacoits.
Bahar Husain found two empty cartridges on the roof of his house and deposited them in the police station.
The first information report is stated to have been lodged by Bahar Husain P.W. 1 at 5 A.M. on the 20th August, 1967.
Evidence was led to prove that some of the looted articles mentioned in the F.I.R. were recovered from Nanhey and Mohammed Yameen and that a single barrel gun was also recovered from the possession of Nanhey.
C. Gupta, J. On the night between the 19th and the 20th of August, 1967, a dacoity is said to have been companymitted in the house of one Bahar Husain in village Mian Ganj, near Police Station Shahabad in District Rampur.
The Allahabad High Court on appeal acquitted all the accused except Nanhey.
