SHEO NATH versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 15-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

796 
SHEO NATH 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
October 15, 1969 
A 
(S. M. SIKRI AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)-Section 114 illustration 
(a)-Recovery 
froni nppe/lant's shop of cloth stolen in 
dacoity-Conviction 
under- s. 
396 1.P.C. solely based on discovery of cloth and their identification-J11-
fere11ces 10 be dran·11 under s. 114. Evidence Act. 
1-he house of the appellant, a cloth merchant, was searched and three 
Jengths of cloth ""·ere recovered which were subsequently identified 
as 
C 
having been s.tolcn from a shop in a dacoity in Vii'hich clothes, ornaments, 
ca:;h etc. were stolen. 
The appellant was not named by the eye.witnesses 
cir in the dying declaration as having taken part in the dacoity. 
Relying 
on the d!scovery o"f the cloth and their identification the High Court con-
victed hiril under s. 395 Penal c·ode. The Court observed that it was legi-
timate to infer that he was one of the dacoits in view of illust.r:ation (a) 
to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 
In the appeal to this Court it was 
contended that the High Court should have convicted the appellant only 
D 
under section 411 Penal Code. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : On the facts the only legitimate presumption to be drawn is 
that the appellant knew that the ~oops were stolen but .he did not know 
that they were stolen in a dacoity. 
All the property which was stolen hy 
the dacoits was no! recovered from the appellant. The appellant, a cloth 
merchant, may well have acquired these goods as a receiver. 
It has not 
been shown that in the village in which the appellant lived it was known 
E 
thet a dacoity had taken place and goods had been ste>len in the dace>ity. 
[799 B-CJ 
IVa.<im Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 191 distinguish-
ed; 
s,u1wa/ Khan v. State of Rajn<tlwn, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 54, re'ferred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 
49cf1969. 
F 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 2, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 1277 of 1968. 
R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J, The only question which arises in this appeal by 
special leave is whether the appellant, Sheo Nath, should be 
convicted under s. 396, I.P.C., ors. 41 I, l.P.C., ors. 412, 1.P.C. 
The facts as found by the High Court are these. A dacoity was 
committed at the shop of Ram Murat in Dhaneja village by 15 
to 20 persons on August 19, 1966, at about 11.30 p.m. One 
dacoit, Ram Shankar, was armed with a gun while others carried 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
SHEO NATH V. U.P. STATE (Sikri, J.) 
797 
spcars, Gandasas and lathis. 
During the course of the dacoity 
Ram Murat was injured. 
One Pancham, who lived in a house 
not for from Ram Murat's shop, and two others came running on 
hearing the noise. 
Pancham was shot down with the gun by 
dacoit Ram Sbankar. 
The dacoits then escaped with clothes, 
ornaments, cash, etc., looted from Ram Murat's shop. After the 
dacoits left Ram Murat dictated a report about the occurrence in 
which he named Ram Shankar Singh, Jaintri Prasad Singh, Nanhe 
Singh and Sulai accused as having been among the culprits and 
this report was sent to the Jalalpur police station, five miles away,. 
where it was received and recorded at 6 a.111. next morning. 
On August 22, 1966, i.e., three days after the dacoity, the 
home of Sheo Nath, appellant, was searched and three lengths of 
cloth were recovered which were subsequently identified by Ram 
Murnt and a tailor named Bismillah as having been stolen from 
Ram Murat"s shop in the dacoity. 
The High Court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge,. 
relied on the cvir:Ience of three eye-witnesses regarding the manner 
in which th occurrence took place and regarding ;he participa-· 
. ticn of the four named accused persons. Shea Nath had not been 
named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pan-
cham and no witness claimed to have identified him taking part 
in the dacoity. But, relying on the discovery of three lengths of 
cloth and their identification, the High Court convicied Sheo Nati, 
under s. 396, 1.P.C. 
The High Court observed : 
· 
.. : 
"From the material on record we are fully con-
vinced that the Exhs. 2 and 3 were st6kn from the shop 
of Rairi Murat in the course of the dacoity committed 
in the night between 19 to 20 August 1966, and since 
they were recovered from th

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