WASIM KHAN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 12-03-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
191 
is corroborated by Madan Lal who states that all the 
1956 
three accused said that the money had been sub-
Ram Krishan 
scribed by them jointly and requested him to accept 
and another 
the same and get the case withdrawn. The case of 
v. 
Gian Chand does not stand on any different footing The State of Delhi 
from that of the other appellants. 
d 
fi 
d 
d Chandrasekhara 
The convictions an sentences are con rme 
an 
AiyarJ. 
the appeal will stand rejected. 
WASIM KHAN 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. 
[B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR, JJ.] 
Possession, recent and unexplained of stolen goods-Presumptive 
evidence against prisoner not only of robbery but of murder as well. 
The appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of one R 
e,nd also sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for having 
robbed the murdered man of his goods. It was established by the 
evidence on the record that the deceased; a shop-keeper of village 
Jarwal had gone to Lucknow to purchase goods for his shop. On his 
return journey he got down from the train at about 10 p.m. 
He had with him a box, a balti, a gunni bag and a jhola and other 
things. He engaged the appellant's cart to take him and his goods 
to his village. Two other persons also got on to the cart. 
Neither 
the deceased, nor the articles which were with him nor the cart 
reached Jarwal. In the morning the body of the deceased was found 
near a bridge in the vicinity of Jarwal. 
During investigation on 
the fourth day after the occurrence the appellant gave the key of his 
kothri to the police and from the kothri, a dhoti, a box, a balti, a 
chadar, a gunny bag and a jhola were recovered which were_identi· 
fied as belonging to the deceased. 
A big knife was also recovered 
from the kothri which the appellant disowned but ·could not explain 
how it was found in his home. 
The appellant on examination 
before the Sessions Judge under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure stated that the deceased asked him to take his goods in the 
cart at about 10 p.m. when he got down at the Railway Station. 
Two other men were also in the cart who got down at the Sugar 
Mill gate near the Railway Station. At Raduayan Bridge three men 
enquired if the deceased was in the cart. The deceased responded 
and got down from the cart asking the appellant to halt his cart 
near Ja.rwal Bazar Bridge where he waited for the deceased up to 
1956 
March 12 
1956 
WasimKhan 
v. 
The State of 
Uttar Pradesh 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1956] 
4 a.m. but he did not turn up. Not knowing the house of the 
deceased he took the dead man's goods to his own house as his 
buffaloes were very hungry. He stated further that he bad handed 
over all the articles of the deceased person to the police which he 
had locked in the kothri. 
Held, that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen pro· 
party while it would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on 
the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on 
the charge of murder. All the facts which tell against the appellants 
especially his conduct indicating consciousness of guilt1 point equally 
to the conclusion that he was guilty as well of the murder as of the 
robbery. 
The Emperor v. Sheikh Neamatulla ([1913] 17 C.W.N. 1077), 
Queen-Empress v. Sami and Another ([1890] LL.R. 13 Mad. 426), 
Emperor v. Ghintamoni Shahu (A.LR. 1930 Cal. 379), In re Guli 
Venkataswami {A.LR. 1950 Mad. 309), and Ramprashad M1tkundram 
Raiput v. The Grown (A.LR. 1949 Nag. 277), referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 24 of 1956. 
On appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and order dated the 26th September 1955 of the 
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal 
Appeal No. 195 of 1955 and Capital Sentence No. 17 
of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated 
the 11th April 1955 of the Court of the Sessions Judge 
at Babraicb in Criminal S.T. No. 9 of 1955. 
D. R. Prem, for the appellant. 
K. B. Asthana and 0. P. Lal, for the respondent. 
1956. March 12. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
IMAM J.-Tbe appellant was sentenced to death 
for the murder of one Ram Dularey. He was also 
sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for 
having robbed the murdered man of bis goods. 
He 
was tried along with two other persons, who were 
acquitted, by the Sessions Judge of Babraich. All the 
four assessors, who attended the trial, were of the 
opin

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