Lalchand Khatri v. State Of Bihar — 1959 DIGILAW 110 (PAT)

Judgment Misra, J. 1. These three appeals arise out of the convictions of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dhanbad-Singhbhum under Sec. 400 of the Indian Penal Code, which relates to the offence of dacoity committed by a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities and have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1957 has been filed on behalf of Lal-chand Khatri, Ramkhelawan Goala, Mahan Singh and Puran Singh, who have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. They are represented in this Court by Mr. S. N. Sahay. Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 1957 is on behalf of Safait Mian, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. He is represented fas tins Court by Mr. Akbar Imam. Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 1957 is a jail appeal preferred by eight persons, namely, Nivnai Rai, Singhara Singh, Gam-bhir Pasi alias Gambhir Goala alias Mahipat Bhor, Jadua Mandal, Bijli Singh, Dasu Dusadh, Ram Chandar Singh alias Polo and Bilcarama Gossam. They were tried along with thirteen other persons, Dalip Singh, Fonza Isai, Fouza Singh, Gola, Rasool, Pan Singh alias Pahan Singh, Mahabir alias Marwari Mandal, Ujagir Christian., Gaya Bowri, Panchu Mistri, Thakuri Mandal, Baidyanalh Singh, Jagiru Punjabi and Narain Dusadh, who were, however, acquitted. They were charged with being members of a gang of dacoits associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities and as such they committed a large number of dacoities between June 1950 and October 1953 at different places within the States of Bihar and West Bengal They were alleged in the first information report to have their usual headquarters at Siripur and Pariharpur, P. S. Jamuaria, district Burdwan and sub-stations at Mathani near Asansol, Lachipur and Giridih and various other places in the district of Dhanbad from where they operated, although the learned Additional Sessions Judge in framing the charge stated that they were members of a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities. It was alleged that the gang consisted of about 100 persons and they were charged with the commission of 33 dacoities of which the police were able to get evidence. 2. It was alleged that the gang consisted of about 100 persons and they were charged with the commission of 33 dacoities of which the police were able to get evidence. 2. The police of Bihar and West Bengal were considerably exercised over the out-break of an epidemic of dacoities in the districts of Santhal Par-ganas, Hazaribagh and Manbhum in Bihar, and Asansol Sub-division of the district of Burdwan in West Bengal, during the period in question. They were, however, unable to find any clue of the offenders. On the night of the 13th/14th October, 1953, however, a dacoity took place in the house of Bandhu Ram (P. W. 141) at Chapuadih within police station Bangabad in the district of Hazaribagh. The villagers there kept a vigil on account of the fear of dacoits and Bandhu Ram, accordingly, had gone in the company of constables and chowki-dars to patrol the village. He came back to his house at aboul 12 in the night. He was sitting on a Khatia. Some time after his return, he heard knocking at his Darwaza and he suspected the presence of dacoits. The door was forced open and Bandhu Ram was caught hold of by four or five dacoits who started beating him. The dacoits removed the ornaments from the person of his wife, Chhatri Kumari (P. W. 140). The commotion produced by the presence of the dacoits roused a number of villagers who gave chase to the dacoits who started running away after they had ransacked the house. One of the fleeing parly tumbled into a ditch. Iswar Ram (P.W. 170) flashed his torch in the ditch and saw that the fallen dacoit was trying to get up and ran away. Iswar Ram, however, boldly jumped into the ditch and gave the dacoit two blows with his sword. Other villagers also arrived there and started assaulting the dacoit. He was apprehended and he gave out his name as Khairuddin alias Khairu who was granted pardon by the State and gave evidence as an approver, being P.W. 1. It may be stated that it was the arrest of Khairuddin and his subsequent desire to confess which supplied the material clue to the police in tracing out the members of the gang as also to gather details of the large number of dacoi-ties for which the gang was responsible. 3. It may be stated that it was the arrest of Khairuddin and his subsequent desire to confess which supplied the material clue to the police in tracing out the members of the gang as also to gather details of the large number of dacoi-ties for which the gang was responsible. 3. Khairuddin was brought from Hazaribagh to Dhanbad jail on the 19th January, 1954, and on the 2nd of February, 1954, he sent a petition to the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad, saying that he desired to make a confession and he was accordingly, produced before Sri Gouri Shankar Panda, Deputy Magistrate (P. W. 166). The learned Magistrate gave the necessary warning and also gave him time to reflect. He started recording the confession of Khairuddin on the 3rd of February, 1954. which finished on the 11th of February, 1954. In that he stated that the gang was working under the leadership of Safait. P. W. 2 Nazir Singh, the other approver, was arrested on the 1st of March, 1954, at Dhanbad when he had gone to the jail in order to meet Khairuddin, one of the under-trial prisoners connected with the present case. He also expressed a desire to make a confession and was produced before the same Magistrate (P.W, 166) on the 15th March, 1954. He was also given the necessary warning and time to reflect. His confession was recorded between the 16th and 19th of March, 1954. Collecting details from the two confessions the police were able to have full information about the existence of the gang, its modus operandi and the different dacoities committed by the members of that gang, Since the dacoities were committed in West Bengal and Bihar, the C. I. D, officers of both the States were working in collaboration. They began to collect materials on the basis of the confessional statements as to how far they could be accepted as correct and Sri H. K. Varma, (P.W, 244) of the Bihar C. I. D. lodged first information report (exhibit 17/15) at Chirkunda police station under Sec. 400 of the Indian Penal Code, on the 28th of May, 1955. He took up investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet against all the 29 persons including the two approvers on the 30th July, 1955. He took up investigation of the case and submitted charge sheet against all the 29 persons including the two approvers on the 30th July, 1955. In course of the commitment enquiry held by Sri N K. Chakravarty, Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad, pardon was granted to the two approvers, Khairuddin and Nazir Singh and the enquiry was taken against the remaining 27 accused men. Prosecution examined 244 witnesses. The learned Magistrate committed 26 out of the 27 accused to Session by his order dated the 16th of July, 1956. In the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who held the trial, prosecution examined 245 witnesses and four were examined as Court witnesses. Out of the number. 50 were police officers, 8 Magistrates and Sub-Registrars who held test identification parades, 8 doctors, 9 jailors and warders and the remaining witnesses were those who came to prove the individual dacoities or witnesses who came to prove the association of the accused persons with one another. 4. According to the prosecution, the modus operandi of the gang was that some members of the gang undertook to collect information about the houses of the persons in whose house they would commit dacoities where they were likely to get some valuables. When the messenger of the party would bring such information, the members of the gang available held consultation as to their plan of action at the house of Safait or Mahan Singh, Dalip Singh or Golam Rasool. They would then proceed to then- destination, commit dacoity and come back singly or in small parties, 5. The accused persons pleaded that they weie not guilty and said further that they had been falsely implicated either by the two approvers owing to personal grudge or that they had enmity with the police officers who roped them in as the accused in the case. Some of them also stated that they were men of means and position and were not likely to be members o£ a gang of dacoits. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ot Dhanbad, on a consideration of the evidence of the two approvers (P. Ws. Some of them also stated that they were men of means and position and were not likely to be members o£ a gang of dacoits. 6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ot Dhanbad, on a consideration of the evidence of the two approvers (P. Ws. 1 and 2), the evidence of identifiaation of the accused by some of the witnesses and other circumstances, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish by producing evidence of a reliable character the guilt of the appellants and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, against which decision these appeals have been preferred to this Court. 7. Mr. S. N. Sahay, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1957, has put forward as his first contention the point of jurisdiction. He has urged that the trial of the appellants at Dhanbad was illegal and beyond jurisdiction, as it was in violation of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Of the dacoitles which formed the subject-matter of charge against the appellants, eleven were committed in the districts of Hazaribagh, Santhal Parganas and Man-bhum -- in Bihar and the remaining dacoities were committed in the district of Burdwan of West Bengal. It was also the prosecution case, resting upon the evidence of the two approvers, Khairuddin (P.W. 1) and Nazir Singh (P.W. 2), that the headquarters of the gang were located at Mathani near Asansol, so that the trial of this case should have taken place in the district of Burdwan in West Bengal and not in Bihar. He has urged that the trial was held in Bihar purposely as the Bihar police were more willing to concoct evidence against the accused persons than the West Bengal police would have done. In any case, jurisdiction to try an offence under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, should have been determined with reference to the place where the headquarters of the gang were situated and not with reference to the fact that some out of a large number of dacoities were alleged to have been committed in certain districts of Bihar. In any case, jurisdiction to try an offence under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, should have been determined with reference to the place where the headquarters of the gang were situated and not with reference to the fact that some out of a large number of dacoities were alleged to have been committed in certain districts of Bihar. It is, no doubt, the prosecution case, based upon the evidence of the two approvers, that the headquarters were at Mathani near Asansol and if, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel were well founded that the offence under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, should have been tried in the district wherefrom the gang carried an its operations, it would certainly introduce some irregularity into the trial. Learned counsel has drawn our attention in this connection to Sections 177 and 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 177 runs as follows : "Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed." Sec.181 in so far as it is relevant stands thus : "The offence of being a thug, of being a thug and committing murder, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of having belonged to a gang of dacoits, or of having escaped from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person charged is." Learned counsel has contended that these are the only two relevant sections of which Sec.177 is general and Sec.181 is special The words "tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person charged is" should be construed with reference to the headquarters of the gang because that should technically be taken to be the place where the members of a gang of dacoits associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities should be taken to reside. In support of this contention, apart from the wording of the section, he has referred to the case of Queen Empress V/s. Chidda, 1LR 20 All 40, which was also considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In support of this contention, apart from the wording of the section, he has referred to the case of Queen Empress V/s. Chidda, 1LR 20 All 40, which was also considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. That case, however, is not relevant and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly distinguished it on the ground that in that case the offence having been committed in the district of Muttra Mathura) and the pardon having been granted by the District Magistrate of Etah, it was held that he had no jurisdiction to grant pardon as the offence could not be tried in that district. Learned counsel for the State bus referred to Sec.179 which runs thus : "When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose juris-diction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued." I am inclined to hold that the commission of individual dacoities is the primary and necessary consequence of the formation and membership of a gang contemplated under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code and if some dacoities were committed within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad Sessions Division, the enquiry and trial would be valid in terms of this section as well. Learned counsel for the State has also relied upon the case of Kashi Ram Mehta V/s. Emperor, AIR 1934 All 499 (FB). That was a case of criminal misappropriation which is also covered by Section 181. It was, however, observed by the Allahabad Full Bench that Sec.179 neither controls nor is controlled by Sec.181. They have a cumulative effect and are not mutually exclusive in the sense that if one section applies, the other can never possibly apply. It has accordingly been urged that it will not be correct to hold that Sec.181 alone covers the present case. Learned counsel has further relied upon the case of Emperor V/s. Gobihda, 12 Cri LJ 113 (Lah). That was a case under Sec, 400, Indian Penal Code, in which a Magistrate at Gurgaum committed 19 persons to Session on charges under Sec. 400. One of the accused was arrested in Bharatpur State and the learned Magistrate held commitment enquiry, so far as he was concerned, at Dig. That was a case under Sec, 400, Indian Penal Code, in which a Magistrate at Gurgaum committed 19 persons to Session on charges under Sec. 400. One of the accused was arrested in Bharatpur State and the learned Magistrate held commitment enquiry, so far as he was concerned, at Dig. The learned Sessions Judge of Delhi Division recommended to the Chief Court of the Punjab the cases of those persons who did not belong to Gurgaum district but belonged to Bharatpur for quasli-ing their commitment, as, in his opinion, those accused who had not committed any offence in Gurgaum district, nor were arrested in that district, could not be said to be persons in whose case the word "is" in Section 181 referred to above could be applied. The Chief Court of the Punjab, however, consisting of Sir Arthur Reid, Chief Judge, and Mr. Justice Rattigan, discharged the reference holding that the word "is" must not be confined to "is of his own accord", but it must be construed as meaning the same thing as the word "found" within the meaning of Sec.188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held accordingly that even if the persons arrested in Bharatpur were brought to Gurgaum district for trial, the Gurgaum Court had jurisdiction to hold the enquiry or trial. The ratio adopted by the learned Judges in this case that the word "is" in Sec.181 has far more force than the word "found" in Sec.188, Code of Criminal Procedure, is, if I may say so with respect, well grounded. It may be stated that the situation contemplated under Sec.181 is identical with that under Sec, 188. The legislative policy in regard to the provisions of both the sections proceeds from the element of uncertainty in applying to such cases the ordinary principle of place of enquiry or trial which is provided for in Section 177. It may be stated that the situation contemplated under Sec.181 is identical with that under Sec, 188. The legislative policy in regard to the provisions of both the sections proceeds from the element of uncertainty in applying to such cases the ordinary principle of place of enquiry or trial which is provided for in Section 177. A thug or a member of a gang of dacoits, or a desperate dacoit who can commit dacoity with murder are persons who have been put in a special category because in many cases their activities would cover a wide range included in various Sessions Divisions and, hence, it has been considered expedient in regard to an Indian subject committing an offence at any place within and beyond the limits of British India or within the territories of a Native Prince, as the position was before the merger of those States in the Indian Union, or where a servant of the Government committed an offence in the territories of a Native Prince, he might be dealt with in respect of the last offence as if it had been committed at any place in British India at which he might be found. Following the view in Empress V/s. Maganlal, JLR 6 Bom 622, it was rightly pointed out that the word "is" in S, 181 is clearer than the word "found" in Sec.188 and as such it must be construed that even if a person accused of the offence of belonging to a gang of dacoits is brought under arrest to the jurisdiction of a particular Court, it is competent to put him on trial in that Court. In the present case also the accused persons were brought to Dhanbad, including the two approvers, and as such there was nothing wrong or illegal in holding the commitment enquiry or the trial in the district of Dhanbad, I am further in-clined to hold in respectful agreement with the decision of the Full Bench in AIR 1934 All 499, referred to above that such a case is also governed by Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section is thus worded : "When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas". In the case of persons charged with belonging to a gang associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities the offence would be the membership of the gang given to committing the offence of dacoities, and each one of the dacoities must be held to be one of the acts done by the gang which would make the members liable under Sec. 400 Indian Penal Code, Since out of 33 dacoities, eleven were committed in Bihar and some of them in the district of Dhanbad, there can be no doubt that if Sec.182 is applicable there was no irregularity in holding the commitment enquiry and trial at Dhanbad. Learned counsel for the State has also drawn qur attention to Sec. 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that: "No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceeding in the course of which it was arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong Sessions division, district, Sub-division or other local areas, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. The argument of Mr. S, N. Sahay is that Sec. 531 would not govern the present case as this section should be confined to those cases only where no objection has been initially raised by the accused persons to the venue of the trial. In the present case, however, an objection was raised by the accused persons. In my opinion, however, even if an objection was raised and rejected, the accused persons could well have come to the High Court to have the order revised. They did not take any such step and in fact argued the point of jurisdiction only after the evidence was recorded. In my opinion, however, even if an objection was raised and rejected, the accused persons could well have come to the High Court to have the order revised. They did not take any such step and in fact argued the point of jurisdiction only after the evidence was recorded. The terms of Sec. 531 are wide enough to cover the present case and, as I have said, there is no irregularity. Even if there were any, no prejudice having been shown to have been caused to the accused persons, the irregularity is completely cured under S, 531 of the Code ct Criminal Procedure. It may also be stated that although the argu ment of the learned counsel for the appellants pro ceeded upon the footing that the headquarters of the gang was alleged to be Mathani, in fact the statement in the first information report as quoted above is different; and although the leader of the gang Safait, was alleged to reside at Pariharpur, the meetings of the gang used to take place at places which appeared to them convenient from time to time. 8. The main item of evidence, as I have stated above, against the appellants was the confessional statements of Khairuddin {P,W. 1) and Nazir Singh (P.W. 2) and the evidence given by them in court after they were granted pardon by the learned committing Magistrate when they agreed to become prosecution witnesses and offered to make a full disclosure about the activities of the gang and the persons associated with it (After discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded :) AH the elements of the offence under Sec. 400 of the Indian Penal Code are made out by the evidence of these two witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that their evidence should be discarded as it proceeds from enmity or is inspired by the police. In law also the evidence of these two approvers, unless corroborated in material particulars, cannot be held to be sufficient for convicting the appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was addressed at length with reference to the various relevant authorities on the point. So far as the proposition regarding the approvers evidence requiring corroboration in material particulars before a conviction is based on such evidence is concerned, the position is well-settled. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was addressed at length with reference to the various relevant authorities on the point. So far as the proposition regarding the approvers evidence requiring corroboration in material particulars before a conviction is based on such evidence is concerned, the position is well-settled. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar V/s. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 that although the evidence of an accomplice is good evidence against his co-accused under Sec.133 of the Evidence Act, and although there is no rule of law that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction on the testimony of an accomplice, the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. As a rule of prudence, therefore, sufficient corroboration is insisted upon with reference to the circumstances and other details to show that the testimony of the approver is in fact reliable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered in this connection in detail the various circumstances showing that the approvers were stating the truth and had no animosity in implicating the accused persons falsely On the charge of being members of the gang of dacoits associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities, 9. * * * 10. * * * 11. * * * 12. * * * 13. * * * 14. * * * 15. * * * 16. One of the questions of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for considering the relevancy of the evidence led by the prosecution is that in an offence under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, no daeoity can be taken into account against the accused persons in respect of which a trial has been held and the accused has been found not guilty. In assessing the evidence in the present case as well, therefore, the cases which were started against the individual accused for specific dacoities and ended in their acquittal should be excluded and only those cases should be put into weight against the accused persons for which no charge of daeoity was framed against them and for which evidence has been collected by the prosecution for fstablishing the charge under Section 400, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has also urged that if there had been a conviction of an accused person on a definite charge of daeoity that also should not be taken into account in a case under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, because they have already been punished for that offence-He has referred in support of this contention to the case of Emperor V/s. Lalit Mohan, a decision of the Special Bench of the Calcutta High Court, ILR-38 Cal 559, which was a case of conspiracy to wage war against the King, under Sec.121 A of the Indian Penal Code. In that case the proposition was laid down that where a person has been tried for a specific offence and acquitted, and he is subsequently charged with conspiracy of winch that offence is alleged to form a part, his acquittal should be held to be conclusive and it will be very dangerous principle to regard the judgment of not guilty as not fully establishing the innocence of the person to whom it relates. Learned counsel has contended that the underlying principle of the conspiracy charge is the same as that of the offence of belonging to a gang of dacoits out to commit dacoities habitually, and once there is an acquittal of a certain person of the specific offence as in a conspiracy case, that piece of evidence should not be considered as a link in the chain of evidence for establishing the charge of habitually committing dacoities. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the case of Bachchu V/s. Emperor, AIR 1930 Oudh 455 where it has been laid down that on a charge under Section 400, Indian Penal Code, it is not illegal to look to the evidence relating to a specific daeoity for which the accused was charged before in a regular trial and was found innocent as the gravamen of the charge under Sec. 400 is to establish association of a number of persons for committing dacoities as a matter of habit and even if sufficient evidence be not available for finding the accused person guilty of the offence of committing a daeoity, the fact that he was so charged along with other persons of the gang would be relevant to show their association with one another. Learned Counsel for the appellants has endeavoured to distinguish this case with reference to the decision in the case of Lale V/s. Emperor, AIR 1929 Oudh 321 (2) which in its turn rested on the case of Khilawan V/s. Emperor, AIR 1928 Oudh 430. The observation in AIR 1930 Oudh 455, supports the contention on behalf of the State- Learned counsel has-also referred to the case of Murli Brahman V/s. King-Emperor, 26 Cri LJ 1412 : (AIR 1925 Oudh 374 (2)1 wherein it was held that the conviction under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, can be recorded even where no actual commission of a daeoity by a gang is proved. "The element of that offence is association with the knowledge that it is formed for the purpose of committing dacoities habitually" and that it is not illegal to pass Separate sentence on a person who has been proved to have been a member of a gang of dacoits and to have participated in a particular daeoity. The limit of punishment prescribed by Section 71, I. P. C does not apply here but the provisions of Sec.397, Code of Criminal Procedure will apply and it will be at the discretion of the Criminal Court whether the two sentences should run concurrently or not. The limit of punishment prescribed by Section 71, I. P. C does not apply here but the provisions of Sec.397, Code of Criminal Procedure will apply and it will be at the discretion of the Criminal Court whether the two sentences should run concurrently or not. In my opinion, the correct principle to be followed in such cases in terms of Section 400, Indian Penal Code, is to look to the evidence of association and that must be held to be independent of whether an accused man has been convicted in a case or has been acquitted for want of sufficient evidence against him. It may well be that where an accused person has been acquitted in a case on the ground that he is completely innocent of the crime, the evidence of the prosecution to prove his complicity in the activities of the gang based upon that particular crime may not be relevant against an individual accused; but the mere fact of acquittal would not weaken the weight of the evidence led against him because, as Sec. 400 lays down, it is the evidence of association that is really material and not participation in any particular dacoity, and for the purpose of proving association the evidence which has been found to be insufficient for a specific charge of dacoity may yet be relevant for establishing association of the members of the gang for the purpose of committing dacoities. Mr. Varma, for the State, has also drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in the case of Bhima Shaw V/s. State AIR 1956 Orissa 177 wherein the proposition was re-affirmed that a person may belong to a gang of dacoits without having actually participated in the commission of even one dacoity, "A clever member of the gang may always re-main in the back-ground while organising the operations of the gang giving them active assistance for the purpose of meeting together, furnishing them with weapons and also screening them after the commission of the offence and helping them in the dispo-sal of the looted property". It was also held that in a trial for an offence under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, evidence of previous conviction may be admissible for the purpose of proving habit and association. It was also held that in a trial for an offence under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, evidence of previous conviction may be admissible for the purpose of proving habit and association. The decision has gone to the length of laying it down that not only evidence of previous convictions on the charge of dacoities but also in respect of other offences such as theft, burglary and orders un- der Sec.109 or 110 Code of Criminal Procedure, may be admissible. It is true, no doubt, that such evidence of association to commit offences other than dacoities may not be enough to establish the charge of belonging to a gang for habitually committing dacoities, but the evidence should be relevant for establishing association; and if such a gang or certain members thereof have been found to participate in a number of dacoities, the evidence of association based on other offences would be relevant to show that the gang also operated for the purpose of committing dacoities frequently and habitually. I am in agreement with the decision of the Orissa High Court and no case has been brought to our notice which runs counter to the proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Oudh Chief Court and the Orissa High Court I am inclined to distinguish the decision in ILR 38 Cal 559 on the ground that it was a case of conspiracy and where, as I have said, the acquittal is recorded on the ground that the evidence against an accused is wholly unreliable such evidence may be excluded from evidence but mere acquittal is not enough for the purpose. Learned Counsel for the State has also drawn our attention to another decision of the Calcutta High Court published by the Superintendent, Government Printing Press, West Bengal Government, known as Laldins Gang Case, (Criminal Appeal No. 218 of 1951) heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and decided on the 4th of April, 1954, wherein also it has been ruled that evidence as to previous conviction could be admissible to prove association and not for the purpose of proving bad character. It has also been observed in that case that such evidence may not by itself be enough to justify a conviction under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, for which independent evidence must be found to establish the main ingredients of the offence. It has also been observed in that case that such evidence may not by itself be enough to justify a conviction under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, for which independent evidence must be found to establish the main ingredients of the offence. Such a conviction, however, must relate to an offence which would fall within the period for which the accused has been charged with the offence under Section 400, Indian Penal Code. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also urged that in order to prove a charge under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, it will not be enough for the prosecution to lead evidence of the participation of the individual accused in one or two dacoities only but it must be in a series of dacoities to prove habit and the number in any case cannot be less than 4 to 5, or, to put it at the minimum, three. It must also be established that the members of the gang alone have been participating in the dacoities in which case alone it can be held that the gang has been operating for the purpose of habitually committing dacoities. In the present case, however, the evidence of the approvers Khairuddin (P. W. 1) and Nazir Singh (P W. 2) is that the modus operandi of their gang was to send some members of the gang and also to have local men associated with them in finding out the houses where dacoities could be committed and in otherwise facilitating the commission of the offence. That being so, dacoities commitfed by such a gang cannot be held to come within the purview of Sec. 400. In my opinion, there is absolutely no substance in this contention. I have referred above to the decisions of the Oudh Chief Court in 26 Cri LJ 1412 : (AIR 1925 Oudh 374(2) ), and also the decision in AIR 1956 Orissa 177, which lay down in unambiguous terms that it is not necessary to establish the participation of any member even in a single dacoity. All that is necessary to establish is that a gang exists, for which evidence of association of certain persons has been led, and the object of the gang is to commit dacoities habitually which may be proved by various members of the gang coming together and participating. All that is necessary to establish is that a gang exists, for which evidence of association of certain persons has been led, and the object of the gang is to commit dacoities habitually which may be proved by various members of the gang coming together and participating. There is no hard and fast rule with regard to the number of dacoities committed by individual members of the gang, If association of the accused for the commission of the offences has been established by cogent evidence and the gang as a unit through various members has been found to commit dacoities, every member is equally culpable and there is no foundation in the contention that parti cipation of each one of the individual members must be established in at least three, four or five dacoities. I see no force in the further contention that Sec. 400 cannot apply if some outsiders as informers or helpers also have joined the gang in a particular enterprise. The lead in the operation being that of the gang in question, the main responsibility must be of the gang, and the fact of the gang taking the help of a few outsiders does not affect the real cha racter of the operation. The contention, therefore, must be rejected as devoid of force. 18. Learned Counsel has urged, in the next place, that the evidence of one approver cannot be corroborated with reference to the evidence of the other approver. The contention, therefore, must be rejected as devoid of force. 18. Learned Counsel has urged, in the next place, that the evidence of one approver cannot be corroborated with reference to the evidence of the other approver. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has kept this standard in view and the conviction of the appellants rests not upon the fact that what Khairuddin stated was supported by Nazir Singh or the fact that they made confessions before Sri G. S. Panda (P. W. 166), but upon independent evidence either of identification of the various accused men by the witnesses in whose houses dacoity was committed at the test identification parades or with reference to the association of the members of the gang noticed by local witnesses where they used to reside or moved together, It is unnecessary, therefore, to refer to the various decisions which were cited before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in support of the proposition that one approver cannot support the evidence of the other approver for the reason that their evidence is tainted, because they are disreputable men as they are out to commit an offence, and, further, that they are out to give evidence against their associates and to betray them. The proposition is well-settled that although it is not illegal to convict an accused person on the evidence of an accomplice, as a rule of prudence, it is desirable to look for independent corroboration of such evidence before convicting an accused man of any offence taking into consideration the evidence given against him by his accomplice. 19. The evidence led by the prosecution in this case has to be assessed on the legal background stated above. It has got to be established, therefore, in the first instance, whether all the 33 dacoities which were attributed to this gang in fact have been shown on reliable evidence to have been committed and then to ascertain further which one of the accused has been found to have participated in these dacoities, 20. In my opinion, therefore, the fact of the existence of a gang of about 100 persons under the leadership of Safait is established beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from the evidence of Khairu and Nazir, the two approvers, the circumstances of the association of the accused persons in various dacoities, following the same modus operandi, would lead to the inference of the existence of a gang. Apart from the evidence of Khairu and Nazir, the two approvers, the circumstances of the association of the accused persons in various dacoities, following the same modus operandi, would lead to the inference of the existence of a gang. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that at any rate, the prosecution story with regard to Safait being the leader cannot be accepted. I have already dealt with the argument that Safait is a man of the district of Gaya and the other prominent members of the gang belong to the Punjab and as such it was unlikely that Safait would be looked upon as a leader by the members of a gang who were predominantly Punjabis, and I have mentioned that there is nothing improbable in the story because Safait being a labour contractor at Pariharpur Colliery owned a gun with a licence and enjoying a position of some prominence in the colliery was a man of some importance among the local men. If a man of his position would think of running a gang, as Khairuddin stated, it was not unlikely that he would get more recruits consisting of unruly elements among the colliery labourers or outside. Apart from the fact, if the suggestion of enmity on his behalf against Nazir Singh and Siraj is disbelieved, there is no reason why the two approvers who belonged to the Punjab would think of implicating him falsely in a gang case as a leader of the dacoits. The police officers could have no grudge against him, as, before the confession of Khairuddin and Nazir, police had never any occasion to suspect the behaviour of Safait as a veteran dacoit having a regular gang of desperadoes under Mm. If the evidence of the two approvers is, therefore, accepted that although Safait did not maintain a written list of members, whenever a new member was introduced into the gang an oath of secrecy was administered to him, it would point to the existence of an organised gang, The gang had regular places of meeting at Gopalpur Randipara, Borachak railway station, two miles from Ondal, Siripur wine shop, Pit No. 9 Pariharpur Colliery at the house of Ghulam Rasool at Mathani and at Lachhipur railway crossing which would show that all the members were knit together and could operate in batches according to their convenience. The party also met occasionally at the houses of Safait, Siraj and Dalip and one Shambhu had seen them meeting. The area over which this gang operated is a compact one including parts of the subdivision of Asansol, Manbhum, Dhanbad, Giridih subdivision of Hazaribagh and the border areas of Santhal Par-ganas. The very frequency with which the gang boarded the Banaras Express at Sitarampur and got down at Madhupur from where they started for dacoities in Giridih subdivision would also point to the existence of a gang of dacoits. If the evidence of the approver Khairuddin is accepted that he went frequently to consult Safait before the commission of a dacoity, who either joined personally with his gun or lent it to the party, and the fact that when he was in the company and tickets had to be purchased, he met the costs of the party and ultimately presided over the distribution of the booty would also show that a gang was led by him and Gambhir, Khairuddin and others were next in command of the party. The evidence of general association given by some of the prosecution witnesses although in itself may not be of much value may be put in weight along with the other circumstances to establish the existence of a gang of dacoits, I am satisfied, therefore, that the dacoities referred to above were committed by an organised gang of men who were operating as a unit although the participants differfed on different occasions. They habitually committed dacoities during the period under charge, viz. June 1950 to October, 1953, and any individual accused found associated with this gang, even if he is not shown to have participated in any single dacoity, will be found guilty under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, for his mere membership of the gang. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that at least 4, 5 dacoities must be established to have been committed by an individual member before he could be held liable for punishment under Sec. 400 has already been negatived by me with reference to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that at least 4, 5 dacoities must be established to have been committed by an individual member before he could be held liable for punishment under Sec. 400 has already been negatived by me with reference to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that the court will have to be circumspect in deciding whether a particular accused, who has been shown to have participated in only one dacoity, can be necessarily held to be a member of the gang, e.g., in the present case if there be any accused man who was requested by the members of the gang to help the gang in committing dacoity or who invited the gang to commit dacoity in the locality out of personal grudge or greed but has nothing further to do with the activities of the gang he may be liable only for the particular offence if there is evidence against him as one of the culprits in committing a dacoity. But those who are prepared to lend their services to the gang for commission of any dacoity which might be planned to be done by the gang as a whole, it must be held that he is liable for the offence of being a member of a gang of daooits out to commit dacoities habitually, even if the concrete evidence against him is that of participation in only one dacoity. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection as Sec. 400 in terms does not lay down any such limit. Membership of tile gang, therefore, in regard to an individual accused person will depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case and not upon any arithmetical calculation with regard to the number of dacoities in which an accused may be found to have taken part along with the other members of the gang. 21. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be stated that when the case was taken up for hearing it appeared that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years would not be held to be adequate if the accused are found guilty of habitually committing dacoities as members of a gang. 21. Coming to the question of sentence, it may be stated that when the case was taken up for hearing it appeared that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years would not be held to be adequate if the accused are found guilty of habitually committing dacoities as members of a gang. The menace of dacoity has become so serious that life and property have become absolutely insecure in the villages where there is no adequate arrangement for police protection. A normal sentence awarded in this Court on the charge of committing dacoity is ten years. It is appropriate, therefore, that for a conviction under Sec. 400, Indian Penal Code, which in the very nature of it is a more serious offence, the maximum penalty prescribed under the section should be awarded which may operate as a deterrent to the commission of such an offence. The appellants were given sufficient time to show cause why the sentence passed upon them would not be enhanced, if their convictions were upheld. Some of them filed their show cause petition and others, in. spite of service of notice, did not take any steps in the matter. In my opinion, it is a fit case where the sen-tence of rigorous imprisonment passed on the appellants, other than Safait Mian who has already been sentenced to imprisonment for life, must be enhanced and they too must be sentenced to rigo-rous imprisonment for life. The appeals preferred on behalf of the appellants accordingly fail and must be dismissed. The rule for enhancement must be made absolute in terms stated above, H.K.Chaudhuri, J. 22 I agree.