NET RAJ SINGH versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 19-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NET RAJ SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
DECEMBER 19, 1996 
(DR. AS. ANAND AND KT. THOMAS, JJ.) 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 101 to 111, 114-Burden of proof-
Presumptions-Rule and effect of 
A 
B 
Section 114 Illustration (a)-f'resumption--Drawing of-Possession of C 
silver todal within two days of dacoity-No evidence to show accused con-
cealed it nor was he in possession of any other stolen property involved in 
dacoity-Held : Possessor of stolen article could be a thief himself or only a 
receiver of stolen property-When robbery (or dacoity) and murder fanned 
part of same transaction, court could draw a presumption that the possessor 
was the murderer also-In the circumstances of the case it would not be sound D 
to draw a presumption beyond accused being receiver of stolen proper-
ty-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 396 and 411. 
The appellant was convicted of dacoity with murder under Section 
396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to death by the E 
Sessions Court. The High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the 
sentence to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 
. According to the prosecution, the deceased and her brother accom-
panied their father on a journey to a village. As they reached the jungle 
area five persons stopped them. One of them, who was armed with a gun, F 
shot at the father and snatched a bag containing jewellery from him. 
Another in the gang, who too had a gun, demanded the deceased to 
surrender her ornaments. When the deceased refused to do so, the armed 
men shot her dead and grabed her ornaments. A First Information State· 
ment was lodged and two days after the occurrence of the incident a silver G 
todal (ornament) belonging to the father was recovered from the appellant. 
The appellant was immediately arrested. 
The question before this Court, in the light of concurrent findings 
of the courts below, was whether a presumption under illustration (a) to 
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 could legally have been drawn against H 
375 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A that appellant for dacoity and murder on the strength of his possessing 
one of the stolen articles two days after the occurrence. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. No doubt the illustration is only an example or at the 
B utmost is a guideline. Nonetheless the illustration has a logical basis. 
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 helps the court in deciding on whom 
is the burden of proof in certain situations. A presumption on facts is to 
be raised to assist the court for determining as to the burden of proof in 
a set of circumstances. As the court can draw certain inferences either on 
C · the basis of cumulative conclusion of circumstances or on a single cir-
cumstance the court would be in a position to fix up the responsibility on 
one or the other party in the case with the burden to reverse such inferred 
presumptions. [379-H; 380-B] 
1.2. Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 indicates 
D two stages for a presumption. First is that the possessor could be the thief 
himself and the second is that the possessor could have been only a 
receiver of the stolen property with the requisite knowledge. Apparently, 
the former is of aggravated degree and the latter is of a lesser degree. If 
possession of the stolen article with the accused alone is established in 
E evidence, it is a difficult task for the court to choose between the two stages 
of presumption envisaged in the illustration. The nature of possession of 
the articles, the place or mode of concealment, the manner in which they 
were dealt with by the accused, the length of the intervening period, the 
number of stolen articles possessed by him are all factors which would 
assist the court in drawing a presumption that the possessor was the thief 
F himself: Similarly, if the possession is associated with any other indication 
or incriminating circumstance there may be justification for drawing the 
more aggravated presumption. In a case where robbery (or dacoity) and 
murder are so interconnected with each other as to become integral parts 
of the transaction, the court can go to the extent of drawing the presump-
G tion that the possessor was the murderer also. [380-B-F] 
l 
1.3. In the present case the appellant was found in possession of 
silver todal, not immediately after the murder, but within two days of the 
dacoity. He was found openly moving about with the ornament keeping it 
on 

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