LexAYODHYA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,. .. ' 8!10 AYODHYA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJA.STIIAN August, 17, 1972 [J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. ·R. KHANNA, JI.] I.P c ,_...s 4S7 and 280 read with S. 15.-Appe/lant found inpo.ue.ssion nf stolen·g~ within 11 dayJ of the the/f-Appellilnt if tullty-$, U4 of the Evidtnc:t Act-Its scope. 1b.e appellant and a.oother were convkted u/s- 457 a:nd 380 read with s. 75 LP.C. by Add. Munisitf Magistnte,. The prosecution ca,e was that 00 9th Fcbnrn ~y 1964, certain gold and sliver om~Jl~. were stolen from :1 jeweller's hvuse in Jaipuc Ci.ty. The accused, ~ ~lllgb . wu ~ after 30mc t.irr.e. The finger prmts left by the culJltlta.Uied with the epca- men finger im;,remons (\f Hira Singh accused. Further in punuanu of did0Sl2re sa!~rnoot made by Hira Singh accUBed, oerta.in amount of meney was recovered frml th:: wife cif the Hira Singh's brotber. A nlll:ll.b« of stolen articl~ a.od an instrument of house-hreaJdng were also found. On iotercegation of Hira Sing~ accmed. poliee ruidcd the bouse of tbe eppel- land and recovered from rhe place I 8 stolen article! on February 21, 1964. 1be appeUant was arrested 4 day5 later and 1rem his penonal search, 26 item& of stolen property were r~covercd . In pursuance of information IUp- plied by tht appellant, the police recovered a number of stolen gold article> b~ in a gra,~yard. Tbe trial court aC\:cpted the 'Prosecution ca3e and c.on~ and sentenced the accused penon;. Appeals and revision peti- ttona fikd bv t~ accused ~re diJmiMed. On appeal to this Court. appcl- lant'a CC?unst~ rat~ ln:er alta, tht following objcctioos:-(1) the propriety of the tden~~ti~ of tht recovered articlea w..s ;ueailed; (2) the judg- me_nta of the tnal court and the Additional Sessions Judge were not very ·~~factory (3) that there bas been a misjoinder ot charges ( 4) the con- vtettoo of _the appellanl ahould have been under s 411 I PC and not under sectiOns 4$7 and 380 J.P.C. · ' · · Dismiuing the appeals, B c D 1 HE~.J~ll: (1) Tho recover~d urticlcs wer0 mi:ud with other similar arti~ f c Cl an nece&~ary precautions were taken by the Magistrate The article h'!cbe~~~~~d~~t~fted hyby t~e complainant and his father. Nothinl ex>gent be not accepted. o w t e statement of the Magistrate In tb.l.t reapect (2) Although the High eo t b . Court, the Additional Scsalona ~r 0 served that the judgments of tho mal ataoce I• not very material ·~c -, udge we~ not aat:Ufactory, but thls cirt'UJD· Ia details and c~me to the con~r~ the:•gh Court coD!Idered the evidence (i been proved. Thuefore it can~s ~nbe at 1the Ci!e against tho accuseJ bad b«n prejudiced In any ,~11y. 0 sad that the accused penon.s had (~) . So far u the que5tion or ... 1ubmt.s1on ia without any force D'li&JOind.:r of ~harga Is cooec:ruo:J, the •how that tne accu~d loi U • bec~use the t'lrcumstances of the c:1s~ were charged and that th~ Y comm,tt.:d tho offences with which thev Jl the ll!"e tranaactioo. Thee tw~cncea were committed In the cour!e of C an~ ~ed together Such a coun a~cused could consequently be cbarged nnunal Procedure. e 11 PtTmltted by s. 239 of the Code of -. ! I ·I I .. j I ;i ·' d ;f ;, 1.~ i I ' A B c D E .r G H AYODHYA v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.) 881 ( 4) The house-breaking and theft took place on the night between February 8 and February 9, 1964. The various stolen articles were re- covered from the appellant) house on February 21, 1963 ~ the~e~ after from his person on February 25, 1964. The appellant was m police custody ·after February 25 1964 and more stolen articles were recovered on March 3 1964 from 'the graveyard in pursuance of his disclosure statement. The articles which were recovered on March 3, 1964 can therefore -be held to be in possession of the appellant on February 25, 1964. It would thus follow that within 17 days of the theft, the appel- lant was found in possession of the stolen articles. According to the illustration (a) of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to account for his possession of the stolen articles. The' explanation fur- nished by him is not all worthy of credence. 'ihe courts below were right in convicting the accused. The fact that the appellant was found soon afte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.