KARNAL SINGH UTTAM SINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 19-11-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.t 
.. 
... 
• 
KARNAL SINGH UTTAM SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
November 19, 1975 
[M. H. °BEG AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.J 
747 
Indian Evidence Act-Section 114---Presumption from recent possession of 
stolen property-Nature of. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898-Secition 342-When explanatidn g;.ven by the 
accused under s. 342 i's quite reasonable and 'dredible and supported by other 
evidence in defence, Conviction and sentence under s. 411 of the Indian Penal 
Code is not sustainable. 
On 4-3-1%8, the date of the accident, Kamal Singh, the accused was driving 
the truck No. MRS 73 72. purchased out of the loan advanced by the ex-ser-
viceman Co-operative Society to one Sutar who entrusted the vehicle to Balwant 
Singh, the brother of the appellant, a co-accused, under a contract for hirn against 
a monthly payment of Rs. 2000-2200, after incurring all expenses over the 
truck. The payment was regular up to December, 1967, 
and, 
thereafter, 
Balwant Singh avoided Sutar. Though Balwant Singh met Sutar on 9-3-1968 
A 
B 
c 
and 12-3-1968, i'e. after the date of accident and promised to meet him later, 
D 
he actually absconded resulting in the lodging of a First Information Report by 
Sutar on 20-4-1968 at 12.30 p.m. against Balwant Singh Uttam Singh for tak-
ing appropriate action under s. 408, I.P.C. 
Since· Balwant Singh was absconding and the' vehicle was found in the 
possession of Kamal Singh, the police apprehended him and filed the charge 
sheet. 
The Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, charged the 
appellant under s. ·408 read with s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, but, actually 
convicted him and sentenced him to six m01iths R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -
E 
under s. 411 Indian Penal Code without appreciating the effect of either the 
value of Exhibit Dl dated 12~3-1908 written by Sutar indicating that he was 
agreeable to pay the total costs of the repair of the damaged vehicle, with 
the admission of its execution by Siutar in cross-examination and failure 
to 
explain these or of the explanation given by ·the accused in his 342 statement 
as to how he came into possession of the lorry for repairing it. 
The High Court maintained the conviction and the sentence. 
Allowing the 
appeal by special .leave, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The presumption from recent possession of stolen property 
is an optional presnniption of fact under s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
It is open to the Court to convict the appelJant by using the presumption whew 
the circumstances indicate that no other reasonable hypothesis except the_ guilty 
knowledge of the appellant is open to the prosecution. 
[751-D] 
(2) In fue instant case, tliere was no mention of the appellant's name in the 
F.I.R .. there was no charge under s. 411. I.P.C. against him; and he was not 
asked to explain his possession of the truck, but still he did explain it. 
The 
appellant's answer to the omnibus question under s. 342, Criminal Procedure 
Code, without giving him an jntimation of th~ offence of which. he was likely .to 
be convicted, on the face of it, was quite reasonable and credible. 
The pro-
secution had been unable to repel the effect of this fairly acceptable explanation. 
The exp I anation which the appellant had given was good enough to raise 
serious doubts abont the sustainability of a charge under s. 411, Tndian Pena\ 
Code. 
The principle of benefit of doubt on questions of fact applies whether 
the verdict is of a Jury or the finding is to be given by a Judge or a Magis• 
Irate. 
[751, AB, E, HJ 
O'tto George Gfielle.r v. The King, AIR 1943 PO 211 @ 214 & 215, applied . 
F 
G 
H 
A 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 197 6] 2 S.C.R. 
CRIMINAL APPE'LLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 133 
of 1971. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datecl. the 
15-2-1971 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1354 
of 1969. 
)-
B 
S. K. Gambhir and S. M. Sikka for the appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J. 
The appdlant before us by special leave was charged as 
follows by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay : 
"I, B. P. 
Saptarshi, Presidency Magistrate 6th Court, 
Mazagaon, Bombay, do hereby charge you : 
Karna! Singh S/o Uttam Singh as follows : 
"That you on; or about the 20th day of February, 1968 
at Bombay along with one Balwant Singh s/o Uttam Singh 
who has absconded, at 171, Kazi Sayyed Street, being en-
trusted with

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.