Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. SARKARIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Bhagwan Singh Rana, Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1971
Decided on30-4-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. J. Ramamurthi, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. Harbabs Singh Marwah, and Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondent.
Post Office Act - Section 52 - Appeal against convicted - Delivered a parcel containing a ladys wrist watch - Appellant was working as Sub-Post Master Post Office, in the leave vacancy (P. W. 5), who was a student of the Junior Technical School delivered a parcel containing a wrist watch (Ex. P. 1) addressed to R. L. (P. W.3) appellant, Sub-Post Office - It was an unregistered parcel - Watch did not reach the addressee (P. W. 3) went to contacted (P. W. 5) for obtaining the watch from him - Informed him he had already sent the watch by post Sub-Post Office and made inquiries – Held, nonetheless remains that the parcel was, according to appellants own admission, opened in his presence, in an unauthorised manner, the watch was removed from it and appellant kept watch with him for a period of more than two months without accounting for it - As has been stated, these admissions of appellant have been corroborated by other satisfactory evidence on the record in material particulars - There is therefore no reason to doubt that the appellant committed the offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act and has rightly been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid - Appeal dismissed
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The appellant, Bhagwan Singh Rana, was convicted under Section 52 of the Post Office Act for the theft of a lady's wristwatch from an unregistered postal parcel delivered at the Sohna Adda Post Office (!) (!) .
The incident involved the appellant, who was working as Sub-Post Master on the date the parcel was delivered, and the watch did not reach the intended recipient. The recipient, R. L. Bhardwaj, and another witness, Navtej Singh, made inquiries about the missing parcel and identified the parcel's contents, which had been opened without authorization (!) .
The appellant admitted to opening the parcel in his presence, removing the watch, and keeping it without accounting for it for more than two months. These admissions were corroborated by other evidence on record (!) .
The appellant recorded two statements, Ex. PB and Ex. PC, which were in his handwriting and were made voluntarily, as confirmed by the witnesses and the circumstances of recording. These statements included admissions of possession of the stolen watch and were consistent with the evidence presented (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the appellant retracted parts of his statements but did not deny the voluntariness of the initial statements, and the production of the stolen watch further supported the admissions made earlier (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts below correctly accepted the inculpatory parts of the appellant’s statements and did not err in rejecting the exculpatory parts, as the entire evidence was consistent and corroborated the appellant’s guilt (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the sufficiency and legality of the evidence supporting the conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal insights.
JUDGMENT
SHINGHAL, J.:— This appeal of Bhagwan Singh Rana is directed against the appellate judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 5, 1971, upholding the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated November 4, 1970, convicting him of an offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act but reducing the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The appellant was working as Sub-Post Master in Sohna Adda Post Office, in the leave vacancy of Raghu Ram (P. W. 6) on March 21, 1967. Navtej Singh (P. W. 5), who was a student of the Junior Technical School Gurgaon, delivered a parcel containing a ladys wrist watch (Ex. P. 1) addressed to R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W.3). to the appellant, on March 21, 1967, at the Sub-Post Office. It was an unregistered parcel. The watch did not reach the addressee. R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W. 3) went to Gurgaon in May, 1967, and contacted Navtej Singh (P. W. 5) for obtaining the watch from him. Navtej Singh informed him that he had already sent the watch by post on March 21, 1967. Navtej Singh and R. L. Bhardwaj then went to Sohna Adda Sub-Post Office and made inquiries about the parcel. Raghu Ram (P. W. 6) who had, in the mean time, resumed his duties as Sub Postmaster, told them that he was on leave on March 21, 1967, and that it was appellant Bhagwan Singh Rana who was working for him on that day. He also informed them that he had seen a tin plate lying in the post office. Navtej Singh (P. W. 5) saw that tin plate and identified it to be the same in which he had packed the watch. R. L. Bhardwaj (P. W. 3) thereupon filed a complaint with the postal authorities, and the inquiry was entrusted to A. P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 1), Inspector of Post Offices. It is alleged that during the course of inquiry the appellant recorded a statement in his own handwriting on May 25, 1967, in the Post Office at Parliament Street,. New Delhi, where he was working on that date making some admissions. That statement is on the record as Ex. PB. It is alleged further that the appellant undertook to produce the watch the next day and that he appeared before Inspector A. P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 1) on May 26, 1967, in his office at Gurgaon, and produced watch (Ex. P. 1) and also wrote a further statement Ex. PC. The matter was however not reported to the police until September 15, 1969. It was then that the police registered a case against the appellant and charge-sheeted him for the commission of an offence under Section 52 of the Post Office Act. The case was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. As has been stated, his conviction has been upheld by the High Court but the sentence has been reduced to one year.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Ramamurthi on behalf of the appellant that Exs. PB and PC which were produced in the trial Court as an extra judicial confessions of the appellant, had not been made voluntarily, and should not have formed the basis of the appellants conviction as they were not true, were not corroborated, and were retracted by the appellant.
4. We have gone through both the documents Exs. PB and PC. It has not been controverted, and was in fact admitted, that they are in the handwriting of the appellant. Ex. PB was recorded by the appellant on May 25, 1967 in the presence of Joginder Singh (P. W. 11) Deputy Post master of the Parliament Street Post Office, and Inspector A. P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 1), both of whom have recorded that fact in their respective endorsements and have stated that the document was written by the appellant in his handwriting without any dictation and was given by him to Inspector A. P. Bhatnagar (P.W.1) then and there. Inspector A. P. Bhatnagar has denied that there was any pressure, influence or inducement when the appellant wrote and gave Ex. PB to him, and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to show that the statement in Ex. PB was not voluntary. So far as Jog
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
