LexSATNARAIN SAO versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
IA B c D E F G H SATNARAIN SAO v. THE STATE OF BIHAR April 18, 1972 [A. N. GROVER AND M. H. BEG, JJ.) 207 Indian Pena.I Code. s. 411 and Evidence Act s. 144(a)-Stolen pro· perty found in the possession of accused shortly after theft-Accused's explanqtion must be found to be reasonably true to displace presu1nption against him under.s. 144 Illustration (a) Evidence Act. . A Sen-Raleigh cycle which was stolen by one S was recovered from the house of the appellant along with several other cycles. The appel- lant's explanation was that some of the cycles belonged to members c>f his family and the others were pledged with him in the course of his business. Ext. :PA was produced oy the appellant to show that the Sen· Raleigh cycle in question had been pledged with him by. S. The Trial Court did not accept the document as genuine, rejected his explanation as to how the said cycle came into his poss~ssion and convicted him under s. 411 l.P.C. The conviction was upheld by the High Court Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD,: The .appellant had sought to prove the document eixt. DA to support the transaction of pledge. That document had rixhtly been found not Jo have been proved. Apart from the Sen-Raleigh cycle several other cycles were found in the possession of the appellant which he clainwd to have been pledged with him. No .. article of any other kind was either pointed out or claimed to have been pledged with the appellant or with members of his family which \Wold normally have b:en done ·if the version given by him that the business of pawn brokers was being ~ried on had any truth in it. Pawn-brokers are ordinarily and in normal course expected to rn3.intain some books of account or some documents which contain the particulalrs of the tran- sactions relating to pledge. There was no indication or suggestion by the appellant that he was maintaining any such books of account or documents. [21 lFJ The above circumstances were sufficient to show that the court would be justified in holding that the explanation gi"°n by the appellant could not reasonably be true. A presumption therefore could immediately be drawn in accordance with ·s. 114. Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act. There was hardly any evidence worth the name by which it could be said that the presumption had been rebutted by the appellant. [211Hl The appeal must accordingly be dismissed. Atwal v. Massay, [1971] 3 All. E.R. 881; Otto George Gfeller v. The King, !1943] P.C. 211 and R:ex v. Abramovitch, !19141 84 L.J. (K.B.) 391. referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 6Tof 1968. . . Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1966. 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] 1 S.C.R. S. C. Agarwala and V. J. Francis, for the appellant B. P. Jha, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Patna High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code for which a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment. was imposed. According to the case of the prosecution a Sen-Raleigh cycle was stolen from the possession of Sheo Charan Lal. He reported the matter to the Police on March 25, 1965. It appears that on May 11, 1965 the Station House Officer, Incharge Giridih Police Station A.D.N. Sinha learnt while he was moving about in the town on the Moharram day that a thief was running away with a cycle. The alleged thief was apprehended and the cycle in his possession was taken into custody. The name of that person was Mohnd. Siddique. Re made a s<tatement to the police officer which led him to search the pr~mlses of the appellant. As a result of the search seven cycles including the Sen-Raleigh cycle belonging to Sheo Charan Lal which was stolen on March 24, 1965 and three other cycles were recovered from the house of the appellant. Mohd. Siddique and the appellant were tried, the former under s. 3 79 and the latter under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Sid- dique was convicted and sentenced but he did not file any appeal. It was not disputed before the High Court that the Sen-RaJeigh cycle was recovered along with nine other cycles as a result of the search of the house of the appellant by A.D.N. Sinha the S.H.O., on May 11, 1965. It was also pro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.