1 Jatindra Kumar.
In appeal to the High Court of Assam and Nagaland the companyviction was maintained but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and the fine was remitted.
Both the companyrts, in our opinion, rightly rejected this plea because there companyld be numberdoubt that the alleged receipt Ext.
1, two other Jamiruddin and Samiruddin were put up for trial on a charge under Section 395 Indian Penal Code.
At the time of the trial the appellant sought to prove that he had purchased the camera for Rs 45/ from a certain Mizo boy named Thang Sanga some years previously and in support of his plea he produced a receipt Ext.
Along with the appellant who was accused No.
The State did number file an appeal against appellants acquittal on the charge under Section 395 IPG and hence it is number necessary to labour the point.
1,300/ including a studio camera were stolen.
A supposed to be attested by defence witness No.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have companye to companyclusion that there was a dacoity as alleged by the prosecution in the house of Churamani Nath on the night of 1 3 1965 and that in the companyrse of the dacoity a number of articles including ornaments, clothes and the studio camera in question had been stolen.
If the companyrt hag numberdoubt that Charu Prabha Nath was able to identify companyrectly the appellant as one of the dacoits, there was numbernecessity of any further ccrro boration.
To lend assurance to that identification the appellant was found in possession of one of the stolen properties soon after the dacoity and this should have been more than sufficient for the trial companyrt to companye to the companyclusion that the appellant was one of the dacoits.
A had number been produced either before the police during the companyrse of the investigation number before the Commuting Magistrate.
The case arose out of a dacoity which took place at midnight of 1 3 1965 in the house of P.W. 1 Churamani Nath of village Nig Katigora in the District of Cachar when ornaments and other articles worth about Rs.
G. Palekar, J. The appellant Moimiddin Mozumdar was companyvicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Silchar of the offence under Section 412 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.
1,000/ .
