LEOFRED LOBO Vs. STATE
LAWS(BOM)-1966-10-14
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on
October 03,1966
Leofred Lobo
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LORD ADVOCATE V/S. LORD BLANTYRE [REFERRED]SHARPE V/S. WAKEFIELD [REFERRED]
HONTESTROON V/S. SAGA PORACK [REFERRED]
BANARSI PRASAD V/S. KASHI KRISHNA [REFERRED]
BENMAX V/S. AUSTIN MOTOR CO. LTD. [REFERRED]
QUINN V/S. LEATHEM [REFERRED]
PREMCHAND ROY V/S. STATE [REFERRED]
SHANKARSHET RAMSHET URAVANE V/S. EMPEROR [REFERRED]
SHRIRANG V/S. EMPEROR [REFERRED]
RAMDEO SINGH V/S. THE STATE [REFERRED]
SASIVARANA THEVAR V/S. PONNU [REFERRED]
DURGACHARAN SINGHA V/S. ISAMUDDIN MAHMUD [REFERRED]
D STEPHENS VS. NOSIBOLLA [REFERRED]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED]
TARA SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED]
HARIHAR OHAKNAVARTY VS. STATEOF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
NARAYAN TEWARY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
MOTI DAS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
DHIRENDRA NATH MITRA VS. MUKANDA LAL SEN [REFERRED]
PRATAP SINGH VS. KRISHNA GUPTA [REFERRED]
AHER RAJA KHIMA VS. STATE OF SAURASHTRA [REFERRED]
WASIM KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
BIMBADHAR PRADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
MOSEB KAKA CHOWDHRY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
CHIKKARANGE GOWDA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED]
NISAR ALI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED]
PRANAB KUMAR MITRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
MOTI RAM VS. SURAJ BHAN [REFERRED]
RAMA SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
STATE OF KERALA VS. Y NARAYANI AMMA KAMALA DEVI [REFERRED]
JAI DEV HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
JAGIR KAUR VS. JASWANT SINGH [REFERRED]
NOOR KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED]
BACHU LAKHMAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
B RAM LAL VS. STATE [REFERRED]
GULAB SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED]
RAMESH SINHA VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR LUCKNOW [REFERRED]
PANNALAL LAHOTI VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [REFERRED]
VEERAMACHANENI BUTCHAIAH CHOWDARY VS. NOOLI VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED]
EDAMMA VS. HUSSAINAPPA [REFERRED]
KALIPADA DALAL VS. STATE [REFERRED]
BERNARDO STEENHOLF ULTRICH VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS COCHIN [REFERRED]
KOCHAN VELAYUDHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
RAM NARAIN VS. BISHAMBER NATH [REFERRED]
PANCHU SHEIKH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED]
MAHABIR SINGH VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED]
SWAMINARAYAN JETHALAL CHIMANLAL VS. ACHARYA SHRI DEVENDRAPRASADJI [REFERRED]
BHAGBATI DEI VS. MURALIDHAR SAHU [REFERRED]
JAMMAN VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This revision petition has been lodged under section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by Leofred Lobo and Nabi Khan, who were respectively employed as a peon in the Ordnance Depot and as a constable in the Police Department, against their conviction under section 384 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence awarded to each is six month's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 300 or in default one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. The case was tried by the Judicial Magistrate, Bicholim, on a charge under section 392 I. P. C., but he convicted the accused under section 392 read with section 34 I. P. C. The petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Panjim but the same was dismissed in toto on 1-4-1966 except for one change. The learned Sessions Judge held that the case properly fell under section 384, I. P. C. and not under section 392 I. P. C., as held by the trial Court. Having felt aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge the convicts filed the instant revision petition.
(2.)Shorn of verbiage, the case of the prosecution is that Zeferino, a real brother of the complainant Ana Paula Rodrigues, was arrested by the officials of the police station Mapsa a few days before 19-11-1963 on the charge of murder. The accused Lobo had also been arrested by the same police authorities about the same time and he was locked up in the same room in which Zeferino was confined. It has come in the statement of the complainant that whenever she went to meet her brother in the lock-up she would see Lobo in the same room and that this Lobo was let off about two days before 19th of November 1963. It is said that at about 8 or 8-30 A. M. on the 19th of November the two culprits visited the house of Zeterino at Assonora where only his mother Sebasteana and his brother's wife Brigida were present. According to the averments of Sebasteana, the accused Lobo played an active role in her house and immediately on entrance into the house he enquired where her daughter was. The reply given by Sebasteana did not satisfy Lobo and so he made a demand that the gun by which her son Zeferino had comitted the murder should be shown to him. Sebasteana said in reply that the gun had already been collected by the police authorities. Having felt sceptic about the veracity of that statement, Zeferino searched the house to find out the gun and having failed to lay his hands on it he professed that he was a high ranking police officer and then demanded of Sebasteana a sum of Rs. 500 against the promise of procuring the release of Zeferino. At the same time Lobo held out the threat, if the money was not paid, that he would arrest the daughter and daughter-in-law of Sebasteana and would torture them both inside the jail. Sebasteana was highly terrified and so agreed to raise a loan to comply with the demand made. Just then, Ana Paula, the complainant, appeared on the scene, she having come from Sanquelim. Sebasteana took the complainant into confidence and the latter made over two of her gold bangles to her mother who managed to raise a sum of Rs. 100 by pledging the bangles with Rosina Maria (P. W. 9). An hundred rupee note was delivered by Sebasteana to Lobo but the latter grumbled over the fact that it fell short of his demand. To get over the immediate difficult situation, Sebasteana promised to raise the balance of the sum and the same to Lobo at Mapsa by the hand of her daughter.
(3.)At about noon time on the same day the two accused and the complainant left the house of Sebasteana for Mapsa. They travelled in the same transport. Ana Paula carried with her some food for her brother in the jail. Lobo parted company near the police station at Mapsa, while Ana Paula and Nabi Khan (the other accused) went inside the police station. Ana Paula served the food to her brother and paid a visit to the station House Officer's residence Kalyan Rao, though, it is said, she did not find him at the place. According to the arrangement made by Sebasteana with Lobo the balance amount had to be delivered to Lobo at Mapsa at about 5 p.m. on the same day. Ana Paula returned from Mapsa to Assonora at about 3 p.m. At that stage she apprised her brother George about the morning occurrence and expressed the opinion that the accused were out to cheat them. She suggested that she better consult advocate Ramanim of Porvori. Her brother and mother opposed that move, so runs the statement of Ana Paula, but she left the village in company of her sister-in-law Brigida and made for the house of aforementioned advocate. That advocate, it is claimed, advised Ana Paula to get into touch with the police. Accepting that advice, the two women went to the police station Mapsa and reported the matter to Kalyan Rao. This police officer directed head constable Gundlur to accompany the two women, arrest the accused and bring him to the police station.
(2.)Shorn of verbiage, the case of the prosecution is that Zeferino, a real brother of the complainant Ana Paula Rodrigues, was arrested by the officials of the police station Mapsa a few days before 19-11-1963 on the charge of murder. The accused Lobo had also been arrested by the same police authorities about the same time and he was locked up in the same room in which Zeferino was confined. It has come in the statement of the complainant that whenever she went to meet her brother in the lock-up she would see Lobo in the same room and that this Lobo was let off about two days before 19th of November 1963. It is said that at about 8 or 8-30 A. M. on the 19th of November the two culprits visited the house of Zeterino at Assonora where only his mother Sebasteana and his brother's wife Brigida were present. According to the averments of Sebasteana, the accused Lobo played an active role in her house and immediately on entrance into the house he enquired where her daughter was. The reply given by Sebasteana did not satisfy Lobo and so he made a demand that the gun by which her son Zeferino had comitted the murder should be shown to him. Sebasteana said in reply that the gun had already been collected by the police authorities. Having felt sceptic about the veracity of that statement, Zeferino searched the house to find out the gun and having failed to lay his hands on it he professed that he was a high ranking police officer and then demanded of Sebasteana a sum of Rs. 500 against the promise of procuring the release of Zeferino. At the same time Lobo held out the threat, if the money was not paid, that he would arrest the daughter and daughter-in-law of Sebasteana and would torture them both inside the jail. Sebasteana was highly terrified and so agreed to raise a loan to comply with the demand made. Just then, Ana Paula, the complainant, appeared on the scene, she having come from Sanquelim. Sebasteana took the complainant into confidence and the latter made over two of her gold bangles to her mother who managed to raise a sum of Rs. 100 by pledging the bangles with Rosina Maria (P. W. 9). An hundred rupee note was delivered by Sebasteana to Lobo but the latter grumbled over the fact that it fell short of his demand. To get over the immediate difficult situation, Sebasteana promised to raise the balance of the sum and the same to Lobo at Mapsa by the hand of her daughter.
(3.)At about noon time on the same day the two accused and the complainant left the house of Sebasteana for Mapsa. They travelled in the same transport. Ana Paula carried with her some food for her brother in the jail. Lobo parted company near the police station at Mapsa, while Ana Paula and Nabi Khan (the other accused) went inside the police station. Ana Paula served the food to her brother and paid a visit to the station House Officer's residence Kalyan Rao, though, it is said, she did not find him at the place. According to the arrangement made by Sebasteana with Lobo the balance amount had to be delivered to Lobo at Mapsa at about 5 p.m. on the same day. Ana Paula returned from Mapsa to Assonora at about 3 p.m. At that stage she apprised her brother George about the morning occurrence and expressed the opinion that the accused were out to cheat them. She suggested that she better consult advocate Ramanim of Porvori. Her brother and mother opposed that move, so runs the statement of Ana Paula, but she left the village in company of her sister-in-law Brigida and made for the house of aforementioned advocate. That advocate, it is claimed, advised Ana Paula to get into touch with the police. Accepting that advice, the two women went to the police station Mapsa and reported the matter to Kalyan Rao. This police officer directed head constable Gundlur to accompany the two women, arrest the accused and bring him to the police station.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.