Emperor vs Sitalu Ahir

James, J.—On the night of 3rd January 1932, there was a dacoity in the house of Sorabjit Pandey who lodged an information at the police station, naming Sitalu Ahir among the persons who had been identified as the dacoits. Sitalu Ahir was absconding for some time, and he was not arrested until most of the other persons accused in the dacoity had already been tried. He was placed on his trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Sarah assisted by a jury who by a majority of three to two returned a verdict of not guilty. The Assistant Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court u/s 307, Criminal P.C., being of opinion that Sitalu Ahir should have been convicted. Sitalu Ahir lives in the village adjoining that in which the dacoity took place, and he has actually mortgaged some of his land to Sarju Pandey, a cousin of the complainant Sorabjit who lives in the same house with him.

Sitalu Ahir is therefore known to the people of Surabjit Pandey''s village; and a certain number of witnesses of that village gave evidence that they had seen Sitalu Ahir among the dacoits. Sorabjit Pandey gives such evidence, though he does not ascribe any particular part in the dacoity to the accused Sitalu. Sarju Pandey also professes to have seen Sitalu among the dacoits, saying that he was wearing a white kurta and had a lathi in his hand, but he did not take away any of the articles stolen.

Similar evidence was given by the neighbours of Janki Pandey, Fauzdar Pandey, Siv Prasanna Pandey, Sahawan Pandey, Niranjan Ray and Moti Ahir. The chaukidar Mangal Ahir also says that he saw Sitalu Ahir among the dacoits. Sitalu Ahir absconded after the dacoity which the learned Assistant Sessions Judge pointed out to the jury; and this fact may reasonably be regarded as affording some corroboration of the evidence of his identification. In his charge to the jury the learned Assistant Sessions Judge warned them that the evidence of identification must be scrutinized with caution; but here, since it appears to be true that lights were carried by the dacoits, there would be no doubt regarding the identification if the prosecution witnesses were speaking the truth.

It might appear on the face of it to be improbable that Sitalu Ahir would commit dacoity in the house of persons to whom he was so well-known, but Sorabjit Pandey believed that the dacoity had been committed by way of reprisal, because he and Suraj Pandey were the principal witnesses in a bad-livelihood case against a leading Ahir of his own village.

In a case like this, in which the verdict depends entirely upon the question of whether the witnesses are to be believed or not, weight should ordinarily be attached to the verdict of the jury whose function it is to decide such questions of fact. There does not in the present case appear to be any reason for supposing that the verdict of the jury is perverse, that they would tend unduly to favour Sitalu Ahir, or for any unfair reason to discount the testimony of the persons of the village who profess to have identified him.

It appears to be clear that being unprejudiced the jury heard the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution and did not believe it; and I do not consider that this is a case in which we should interfere with their verdict. The reference is therefore discharged, and Sitalu Ahir will be acquitted and released from custody.

Agarwala, J.

I agree.