Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Gulab Chand, Appellant
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 140 and 140-A of 1984
Decided on 28-3-1995.
Constitution Of India,1950 - Article 11 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302, 394 and 397 - Robbery And Murder - Punishable - Madhya Pradesh preferred aforesaid appeals before Madhya Pradesh Court and impugned judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed both said appeals in part and convicted accused Sections of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life Section and rigorous imprisonment for other offences- It was directed that both sentences would run concurrently- So far accused was concerned his conviction Section Indian Penal Code was set aside and was convicted Section Indian Penal Code- But sentence years rigorous imprisonment was maintained with a fine default suffer further imprisonment for appeal State against all other accused directed against their acquittal Section Indian Penal Code was dismissed High Court and appeal against acquittal and offences punishable Indian Penal Code was also dismissed- Against order of conviction and sentence passed by High Court accused has preferred instant appeals -Held, Court has held that nature presumption and illustration Section Evidence Act must depend upon nature of evidence adduced- No fixed time limit can be laid down to determine whether possession is recent or otherwise and each case must be judged on its own facts question as to what amounts to recent possession sufficient to justify presumption of guilt varies according as stolen article is or is not calculated to pass readily from hand to hand- If stolen articles were such as were not likely pass readily from hand to hand period of one year that elapsed cannot be said to be too long particularly when appellant had been absconding during that period- In our view it has been rightly held by High Court that accused was not affluent enough to possess said ornaments and from nature evidence adduced in this case and from recovery of said articles from his possession and his dealing with ornaments deceased immediately after murder and robbery a reasonable inference of commission said offence can drawn against appellant- Excepting an assertion that ornaments belonged to family accused which claim has been rightly discarded plausible explanation for lawful possession of said ornaments immediately after murder has been given by accused- In case it appears to that murder and robbery have been proved have been integral parts same transaction and therefore presumption arising under illustration of Section Evidence Act is that not only appellant committed murder of deceased but also committed robbery of her ornaments- Court therefore do not find any reason to interfere with impugned decision - Appeal dismissed
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can analyze it and generate the key points with the appropriate references.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dated 29th November, 1985 in Criminal Appeals 326 and 327 of 1980. Criminal Appeal No.326/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Gulab Chand and 7 other accused. Criminal Appeal No.327/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Gulab Singh and Durga. It may be stated that both the appeals were preferred against the Judgment dated 7th December, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.147/79. In the said Session trial, Gulab Chand was accused No.1 and Durga was accused No.3 Gulab Chand, Durga and other six persons stood charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal conspiracy in order to commit murder of Kapuriyabai and robbery of her ornaments on or about 23rd April, 1979 in the village Bhakarwara. The accused Gulab Chand, Durga and Parsoo were also charged under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Kapuriyabai in committing the robbery on the intervening night between 23-24 April, 1979. The learned Sessions Judge, however acquitted all the aforesaid persons under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Gulab Chand and Parsoo were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 397, of Indian Penal Code. But the trial Court convicted Gulab Chand and Durga for the offence punishable under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
2. As aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred the aforesaid appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed both the said appeals in part and convicted the accused Gulab Chand under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the other offences. It was directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. So far as the accused Durga was concerned, his conviction under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and he was convicted under Section 411, of Indian Penal Code. But the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment was maintained with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer further imprisonment for 9 months. The appeal by the State against all the other accused directed against their acquittal under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the High Court and the appeal against acquittal of Parsoo and Durga for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 and 397,of Indian Penal Code was also dismissed. Against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, accused No.1 Gulab Chand has preferred the instant appeals Nos. 140, 140A/84.
3. The learned counsel Mr.Amtiaz Ahmed, appearing as amicus curiae for the appellant Gulab Chand has submitted that there is no evidence worthy of credence to establish the crime of murder and dacoity by Gulab Chand for which his conviction under Sections 302, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is warranted. In the absence of any convincing evidence, the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 302, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that appellants case was that the ornaments stated to have been recovered either from his possession or from the shop, belonged to him and the members of his family. Unfortunately, such case has not been accepted either by the learned trial Court or by the High Court. But for possession of such ornaments even if stolen, no conviction under Sections 302, 394 and 397,of the Indian Penal Code can be based. The learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 380, of the Indian Penal Code and there was no occasion to interfere with the well reas
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
