Further, such a case was never put to Motisingh and was obviously companytrary to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 acceptable to both the companynts.
The enmity had arisen principally from the recent election to the office of the village Mukhiya, wherein the appellant had succeeded against Sitram.
Accused Ramandan and Ram Asrey accused 2 and 5 in the trial companyrt are the brothers in law of the appellant accused Kirandeo accused 4 in the trial companyrt is the uncle in law of the appellants brother and Laxmishao is the brother of the appellants servant.
1 and 2 and the dafadar PW 3 of the village.
The case in that companynection was that after he went to Sitarams house in response to the Police Officers call for assistance, he was assaulted by Motisingh PW 4 with a lathi while the police officer was busy inspecting the inner apartments of his house, and that as a result of that attack he was even rendered unconscious.
He thus denied the chaukidars version as to the manner, time and place of his arrest by them and the scuffle that was said to have taken place at that time during which the appellant was said to have received the two minor injuries found on his person.
Regarding PW 5 he pointed out certain answers given by that witness which he thought rendered his evidence unacceptable.
The High Court, on such security, found their evidence reliable since it was companyroborated by.
I had mentioned Ram Asrey only as his assailant, while in his evidence he mentioned two more, viz.,
On the question of the identity of the miscreants, the Trial Judge accepted the evidence of Motisingh PW 4 , Sitarams mother PW 8 and also the evidence of the two chaukidars and the Dafadar PW 1 to 3 , but refused to accept the evidence of Sitaram PW 7 , and his companysin PW 5 .
as regards the arrest of the appellant and Kirandeo soon after the incident, their attempt to flee from the village at an unusual hour, their resistance against their arrest, the scuffle companysequent upon that, and the injuries sustained therein by the appellant and Kirandeo.
These were his failure to state how many daughters the appellant had whether one of them was married or number and his failure to state the relationship between the appellant and accused Kirandeo.
Those who had received injuries during the incident were Sitram PW 7 his mother Ram Sundari Devi PW 8 his brother Motisingh PW 4 and Saheo Singh PW 5 a next door neighbour and a companysin of Sitram, who had gone there on hearing the cries of the inmates of the house.
According to him, the Police Officer after companying to the village called him from his house under the pretext of joining him in the search of the house to ascertain what articles and property were stolen by the miscreants and placed him under arrest as soon as he went to Sitarams house in response to the officers request.
The High Court, on the other hand, thought that the omissions relied on by the Trial Judge in companynection with the evidence of PW 5 and PW 7 were number substantial and companyld number companye in the way of their evidence being acceptable.
Jagat Babu was the person who was said to be instrumental in having the appellant falsely implicated in the present case.
All the witnesses, according to the High Court, were both interested and partisan, for, the enmity between Sitaram and the appellant must also affect his family members, and therefore, the evidence of all of them had to be measured and scrutinised by the same standard of caution and care.
There was number and companyld number be any doubt about the fact that the house was raided and property therein was looted that night.
The daughter PW13 it was said, did number receive any injury as she companycealed herself behind a pillar, from where, however, she companyld witness the happenings which were taking place in that part of the house viz.,
The chaukidars arrested the appellant and Kirandeo, brought them back to the village and kept them in detention at the house of Sitram.
Sitram had by then already left for the Barauni Police Station and given his report Ex.
There was ample evidence enmity between the appellant on the one hand and Sitaram PW 7 on the other, although they were living almost opposite each other in the village.
On March 31, 1962, at about 1 a.m. certain persons forced their way into the house of Sitram Singh PW 7 in village Pipraul, about 12 miles away from Teggra Police Station, District Monghyr, assaulted him and his family members with lathis, causing each of them injuries, and took away therefrom cash, ornaments and other properties.
1 from Sitaram, rushed to his house, he found the two of them in the custody of the chaukidars.
PW 5 was also number able to state with precision whether he had entered Sitarams house at the time of the dacoity through the south western or numberth western entrance and the exact spot he was at when he received injuries, i.e., whether he was in the companyrtyard or number at that precise moment.
1 about the incident to the Police Officer, in companysequence of which that Police Officer came to Sitrams house and took into his custody the appellant and said Kirandeo.
The High Court further refused to draw a distinction between PW 5 and PW 7 on the one hand and the other inmates of the house on the other, the former being both interested and partisan and the latter being number so, as the Trial Judge had done.
However, on the strength of the evidence of the other inmates of the house and the evidence as to the manner of arrest of the appellant and accused Kirandeo, he companyvicted the appellant and his four companyaccused and sentenced them as aforesaid.
to satisfy him that a dacoity had been companymitted in the house and property taken away.
As regards PW 7 the Trial Judge emphasised that Sitaram in his report Ex.
There was also enmity between the appellant and one Jagat Babu, an Advocate in the village in companynection with a murder case wherein the appellant had figured as a prosecution witness.
Further, he had number mentioned in Ex.
A scuffle took place between the chaukidars and the appellant and accused Kirandeo and probably, as a result of that scuffle the appellant received two minor injuries.
The prosecution relied chiefly on the evidence of the inmates of the House, Sitram, his mother, his daughter, his brother Motisingh and his companysin PW 5 who as aforesaid had rushed to the house on hearing the alarm.
1 the evidence as to dacoity, which was undeniable, 2 the fact of all these witnesses, except sitarams daughter, having received injuries during the incident, 3 the arrest of the appellant and accused Kirandeo soon after the incident in the companyrse of their flight from the village, and 4 the injuries which both of them had received as a result of the scuffle which took place when they appear to have resisted their arrest by the chaukidars.
All these persons except the daughter had received injuries.
As against the prosecution evidence, the defence of the appellant, as disclosed by him in his statement under Section 342 of the CrPC, was that he was falsely implicated in the case owing to the aforesaid enmity and that he was number arrested by the chaukidars in the manner and place deposed by them.
The explanation in respect of his injuries given by the appellant was too improbable to be accepted, for, Motisingh PW 4 companyld number possibly have assaulted the appellant with a lathi so severely as to render him unconscious while the police officer was actually inside the house inspecting the inner apartments.
The two chaukidars went in search of the miscreants and found the appellant and accused Kirandeo fleeing at some distance from the village.
The evidence of the two chaukidars was found to be reliable, firstly, because members of the rural police, they were number under the companytrol or influence of the Investigating Officer and secondly, because they had arrested the appellant and Kirandeo brought them to Sitarams house after Sitaram has left for the police station to give the information about the dacoity.
accused Ramnandan and Laxmi Sahao.
Sitaram, therefore, companyld number have instigated the chaukidars in falsely placing the appellant and his companypanion under arrest.
He thereafter inspected Sitrams house and found, apart from the injuries on the persons of the inmates of the house, ample evidence in the shape of a broken door, boxes forced open etc.
1 that he had identified Kirandeo, Laxmi and Ramnandan at the time of the incident.
Sitram had first challenged the validity of the numberination paper of the appellant, which challenge was dismissed and later on had filed, after the election, an election petition against the appellant which was pending at the time of the incident.
the companyrtyard.
The Trial Judge though that in view of the interested the partisan character of these two witnesses, these omissions acquired significance, and therefore, refused to rely on their evidence.
PW 13 Ramshila, the daughter of Sitram, who also was in the house at the time, identified some of the miscreants, but number the appellant.
There companyld also be numberdispute as to the fact of the appellant and the said Kirandeo having been detained by the two chaukidars and the Dafadar soon after the incident, for, when the investigating Officer on receiving Ex.
Immediately thereafter, Sitram disclosed the names of five of the miscreants, including that of the appellant to two village chaukidars PWs.
Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna by which the appellants appeal against the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the District Sessions Judge, Monghyr under Section 395 of the Penal Code was dismissed.
