Allsop, J.:— The appellants are Lakhan Singh, Chhotey and Tulshi. They have been sentenced for an offence of dacoity under S. 395, I.P.C: Tulshi to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and Lakhan Singh and Chhotey to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each. They have appealed from jail and the local Government has made an application to us for the enhancement of the sentences passed upon them. The appellants are not represented in their appeal, but they have briefed counsel to oppose on their behalf the application made in revision. The offence was committed in the town of Nagina in the house of a woman called Mt. Allah Bachai. She was living alone with her two daughters Mt. Bashidan and Mt. Hamidan, girls of 15 and 12 respectively. She was awakened at night by a man catching her throat and asking her to tell him where her property was. She called for help and her two daughters tried to protect her. One of them received a blow on the head with a lathi and the other was injured slightly with a knife. All three women shouted and a number of neighbours came to their assistance. When this happened the dacoits ran away. It is explained that there were five persons participating in the crime.
2. A head constable and two constables were passing cutside the house at the time on their rounds. They saw two men running away.
3. The head constable sent the constables in pursuit and himself entered the house with a number of neighbours who had assembled. The appellant Lakhan Singh had hidden in the latrine and he was arrested on the spot. The constables came up with the two men whom they were chasing. They hit at one of them with a lathi and caused him a slight injury but he manage to escape through a grove. The other man who was running away was seize by two men who were coming in the opposite direction. He is the appellant Tulshi. The Sub-Inspector heard the name of the appellant Chhotey in the course of his investigation and he sue proceeded in arresting him soon after in the house of Tulshi. It was found that ??? had an injury on his person which ??? have been caused by the constables ??? they were trying to catch him. The defence of Lakhan Singh is that he was not arrested in the house at all, but ??? see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of a number of witnesses who depose ??? his arrest and who have no reason for implicating him falsely. Similarly ??? have no reason for doubting the evident of the witnesses who saw Tulshi running away from the scene of the crime and who say that he was caught by the constables and the two men whom we have already mentioned. He says that he was arrested at his own house, but we do not believe his story and we have no doubt that he is guilty. There is evidence that he was one of the persons concerned in the dacoity apart from the evidence that he was seen running away and was caught. The third appellant Chhotey was identified by a number of persons as having taken part in the dacoity. His story that he was arrested at the house of a respectable gentleman in whose service he was is not supported by any evidence. He made contradictory statements saying at one time that he was in the house of his employer and at another that he was in the house of a doctor where his employer had left him. Neither of these gentlemen have come forward to give evidence on his behalf. The medical evidence shows that he was injured. He says that the injuries were caused after his arrest because the police beat him. We think that this is an improbable story and we are unable to accept it. We have no doubt that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is reliable and that this man was concerned in the crime. The appeals must be dismissed. We find it difficult to understand how the learned Sessions Judge came to pass the light sentences which he has passed. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that this was only a technical dacoity. We cannot Page: 313??? There is evidence that there were ??? men concerned. They went into apartments occupied by three defenceless ??? with the intention of committing ??? They caught Mt. Allah Bachai ??? the throat and wounded the other ??? girls of 15 and 12 years of age. It is ??? that they did not succeed in their ??? of committing theft, but that was ??? to the fact that the neighbours were ??? immediately to come to the ??? of the women. We consider ??? this was a very serious crime deed.
4. The man Tulshi has admitted that he has sentenced to imprisonment for ??? in the year 1923 and for ??? by night in the year 1928. Then ??? the year 1929 he was bound over order Section 109 of the Cr PC, because ??? was, we presume, unable to account in his presence in some place or was ??? of concealing his presence in order to commit a crime. Again in the ??? 1931 he was bound over for a ??? under Section 110 of the Cr PC, ??? because he was a habitual ??? and robber. He is an ??? criminal and undoubtedly he should receive a very severe sentence. It appears that he had decided to embark upon a career of more serious and violent rimes. The other two men, Lakhan Singh and Chhotey, did not appear to have been convicted on any previous ??? and it is argued on their behalf that they are 24 and 20 years of age respectively. We think however that this ??? no reason for taking a very lenient new of their conduct. Dacoity is a most ??? crime which it is difficult to ??? in the sense of bringing home the offence to the culprits and it is an offence which gives rise to a great deal of misery. We consider that in ordinary circumstances a sentence of rigorous imprisonment ??? for a period of seven years is the least sentence which should be passed. We dismiss the appeals of the appellants Tulshi, Lakhan Singh and Chhotey. We ??? the sentences passed upon them by the learned Sessions Judge. We sentence Tulshi to rigorous imprisonment or a period of 10 years and we sentence Lakhan Singh and Chhotey to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years such. The sentences are passed under S. 395, I.P.C
K.S/R.K
5. Order accordingly.