SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
Karnal Singh Uttam Singh, Appellant
 
Versus
 
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1971
 
Decided on 19-11-1975.
Advocates appeared
 M/s. S. K. Gambir and S. M. Sikka, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Bhandare Sr. Advocate, (Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 342 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 411 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 114 unlawful possession - Appeal against conviction - Committed criminal breach of trust - Prosecution evidence in case was One Shankar a member Ex-Servicemen Transport Co-operative Society, had purchased truck after taking a loan Society out of which he had paid - He had entrusted, brother of appellant, with the truck - He had contract with under which he used to get a net income of from who was running truck and seemed to be incurring all necessary expenses over - Amount was paid regularly driver, avoided meeting the purchaser of the truck and was said to be absconding truck met with an accident and to have sent information - Alleged he did not comply with this request had not paid up whole amount due for truck had borrowed from Society, owner of truck, as entered in Insurance papers, was Society itself. stated he found truck where he also found the appellant had been, apparently, driving the truck – Held, Appellant did not have to prove his story but if his story broke down jury might convict - Jury might think explanation given was one which could not reasonably be true, attributing a reticence or an incuriosity or a guilelessness to appellant beyond anything that could fairly be supposed - Case question had to go before Jury and charge was found to be defective - Principale of benefit of doubt, on questions of fact, applies whether the verdict is of a Jury or finding is to be given by a Judge or a Magistrate - Accused were in possession of goods recently stolen they may in the absence of any explanation by accused of the way in which the goods came into possession which might reasonably be true find them guilty, but that if an explanation were given which the jury think might reasonably be true, and which is consistent with innocence although they were not convinced of its truth the prisoners were entitled to be acquitted inasmuch as the prosecution would have failed to discharge the duty cast upon it of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

BEG, J.:—The appellant before us by special leave was charged as follows by the Presidency Magistrate of Bombay:

"I. B. P. Saptarshi, Presidency Magistrate 6th Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, do hereby charge you:

Karnal Singh S/o. Uttam Singh as follows:

"That you on or about the 20th day of February, 1968 at Bombay along with one Balwant Singh s/o. Uttam Singh who has absconded, at 171, Kazi Sayyed Street, being entrusted with certain property to wit M/Lorry No. 7372 valued at Rupees 52,000/- belonging to the complainant Shankar Dhondiba Sutar as driver committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said property and aided and abetted to the absconding accused in commission of the said offence and thereby committed on offence punishable under Sec. 408 r.w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by me on the said charge."

2. The prosecution evidence in the case was: One Shankar Dhondiba sutar a member of the Ex-Servicemen Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Bombay, had purchased the truck No. MRS 7372 after taking a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Society out of which he had paid up Rupees 43,000/- He had entrusted Balwantsingh Uttamsingh, the brother of the appellant, with the truck. He had contract with Balwantsingh Uttamsingh under which he used to get a net income of Rs. 2000/- to Rupees 2200/- p.m. from Balwantsingh Uttamsingh who was running the truck and seemed to be incurring all necessary expenses over it. This amount was paid regularly upto Dec., 1967, Thereafter, Balwantsingh Uttamsingh, the driver, avoided meeting the purchaser of the truck and was said to be absconding. 1098 On 4-3-1968, the truck met with an accident and Balwantsingh Uttamsingh is said to have sent information of it to S. D. Sutar. On 9-3-1963, according to Sutar, Balwantsingh himself went to Sutar. And, when the owner asked him to take him to the truck, it is alleged that he did not comply with this request. As Shankar Dhondiba Sutar had not paid up the whole amount due for the truck which he had borrowed from the Society, the owner of the truck, as entered in the Insurance papers, was the Society itself. S. D. Sutar stated that he found the truck at Thana Katha where he also found the appellant before us, Karnal Singh Uttamsingh, who had been, apparently, driving the truck. The First Information Report was lodged on 20-4-1968 at 12.30 p.m. by S. D. Sutar. It is against Balwantsingh Uttamsingh and makes no allegations against the present appellant. It is said that Balwant Singh Uttamsingh had met S. D. Sutar again on 12-3-1968 and told him that he would turn up again. Vazir Singh Gaya Singh, P. W. 2, the Secretary of the Bombay Ex.-Servicemen Transport co. deposed that S. D. Sutar was a shareholder in the Company and proved the terms of his contract with Balwantsingh. He also made no complaint whatsoever against the present appellant. All that he said was that the truck was seen near Kashali Bridge and the present accused was it driver. Sub-Inspector Ramesh Damodar, P. W. 3, stated that, on 13-5-1968, Vazir Singh, PW 2, and a police constable brought the truck to Pydhonie Police Station and that it was being driven by the present appellant at that time. This is all the evidence against the appellant.

3. The only question that the appellant was asked by the learned Magistrate under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and the appellant s reply are:

"Q. What do you wish to say with reference to the evidence given and recorded against you?

A. I do not know whether M/Lorry No. MRS 7372 was handed over to the complainant on sale-purchase agreement and that the complaint had paid Rs. 43,000/- towards the instalment I do not know whether the price was fixed at Rupees 50,000/-, Balwant Sing is my brother but I do not know if the complainant had given lorry in his possession in his capacity as a driver. I do not know whether Balwant Singh left with M/Lorry in Dec. 1967, I do not know anything about Bal


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top