SHIVAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 19-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

720 
SHIVAPPA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE 
February 19, 1970 
A 
[M. HmAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. RAY AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 
B 
~1rdian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 1 l4-Reco1·ery of properly front pos-
le.HlOn of accused soon after con11nission of a dacoits-fresumption to be 
dr~11·11-Whether (.' preJu1nption of participation in dacoity or of lesser 
v.(tence • 
. T\VO carts loaded ~·ith cloth returning alongwith others from a weekly 
village market \\'ere looted by 20 or more pei'sons. 
The houses of 20 
persons including the 14 _appellants wer:e searched and the looted cloth 
\\"<\S "recovered from their possession. 
They_ were tried and held guilty 
under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court dismissed their 
appeals. In appeal by special leave to this Court their only contention was 
that in the absence of other evidence conncctini? them. \\Tith the dacoity. 
the presumption to be dra\vn frony the possessio~ of stolen clothes ought 
to have been one under s. 411 of he Indian Penal Code or at the most 
under s. 412 of the Indian Penal Code and not of complicity' in the crime 
oi Jacoity. It "as urged that since s. 114 of the Evidence Act did not 
lay down definitely the presumption to he dra\l;n in a given set of circum-
srances it was neccssarr ahvays to start \\·1th the lesser presumption and 
dra\\· the higher presumption only \Vhen there y;as some other evidence to 
shO\\' the complicity of the persons in the crime itself. 
HELD : Jf there is other evidence to connect an accused 
with 
the 
crin1c itself. hO\\'cvcr small. the finding of the stolen property \\'ith him is 
-.~ piece of evidence \\'hich connects him further \vith the crime. There is 
then no question of presumption. 
The evidence strengthens tfie 
other 
evidence alread~ against him. It is only when the accused cannot be con· 
i" stronger than' if there is a large gap of time. 
Disposal of the fruits of 
crin1e that the ·presun1ption may he dra\\'n. 
fn \vhat circumstances the 
one presumption or the other may he dra\\'O \\'ill differ from case to case 
[722DJ 
\Vhen the discoverv of the fruits of crin1e is made in1mediately after 
1hc commission of thC crin1e the presun1ption of compJicity in the ci"ime 
ncctcd . with the c'rime except by reason of possession of the fruits of 
crime tequires the fiqding of a person ready to receive them an4 the short· 
ncss of time. the nalure of the propefty \1lhich is disposed of, that is to 
saY. its quality and character deteirn1in.e \vhcrher the person \vho had the 
gOods in his Possession received then1 
fron1 another or v.'as himself lh·.: 
thief or dacoit. [722 FJ 
In the present case the offence \Yas con1n1itted at night by as many 
as ~O persons or more. Shortly after the offence the houses of 20 person..; 
"·ere searched and large quan.tities of the stolen goods \Vere found in their 
houo;;es. 
It was impossible that these :!O pcn;ons \\·ere n1e.rely receivers ... 1f 
~tolen property fron1 some other :!O persons \\"ho v.·ere the Uecoits. It \\"as 
lcgirimate therefore to raise the presumption in this case that the persons 
,,·ith ~·horn the goods v.·ere found \Vere the dacoits themselves. [723 A-Bl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 87 
of 1967. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHIVAPPA v. MYSORE (Hidayatul/ah, C.J.) 
721 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 24, 1967 of the High Court of Mysore in Criminal Appeal 
No. 29 of 19.65. 
A. S. R. Chari and R. V. Pillai, for the appellants. 
Shyamala Pappu and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. These are 14 appellants 
who 
appeal 
against their conviction under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code 
and sentences of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of 
Rs. 1,000/- passed on them. Originally 20 persons were tried and 
convicted for the same offence and received a like sentence. 
14 
alone have appealed to this Court. 
The incident which took 
place on July 28, 1962 . was theft by dacoity of certain cotton 
pieces from two carts within the limits of Lingsugar Police Station 
a! about 11-30 p.m. 
The facts are that two traders in cloth sent their wares in 
carts for sale. The cartmen halted after the market was over on 
the way for food. 
Thereafter six carts left for Mudgal at about 
10 p.m. When the carts reached a Na/a called Heri Halla about 
three miles from Lingsugur at about 11-30 p.m., 20 persons are 
said to have approached the ca

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