Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.J.Bahadur, J.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Madanlal Agarwalla
Government Appeal No. 59 of 1963 ;
Decided On : JULY 05, 1965
CRIMINAL APPEAL - THEFT - POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS MADE TO POLICE - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - INTERPRETATION - PRESUMPTION OF GUILT UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Three respondents were charged with theft under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the fourth respondent was charged with receiving stolen property under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the respondents had broken into a shop and stolen a large quantity of cloth. The respondents denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents had committed theft or that the fourth respondent had received stolen property. The court held that the statements made by the three respondents to the police were admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, but that these statements were not sufficient to establish the guilt of the respondents. The court also held that the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act did not arise in this case because the respondents had not been shown to be in possession of the stolen property soon after the theft.
Issues: 1. Whether the statements made by the three respondents to the police were admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act? 2. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt? 3. Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arose in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statements made by the three respondents to the police were admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because the respondents were in custody at the time the statements were made. The court relied on the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125, which held that a person who approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him may be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police and may be deemed to be in the "custody" of the police officer within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there was no evidence that the respondents had broken into the shop or that they had stolen the cloth. The court also found that the statements made by the three respondents to the police were not sufficient to establish their guilt because the statements were not corroborated by any other evidence. 3. The court held that the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act did not arise in this case because the respondents had not been shown to be in possession of the stolen property soon after the theft. The court relied on the decision in Moti Lal v. State, AIR 1959 Pat 54, which held that the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act arises only when a person is found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft and has not accounted for his possession.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and acquitted the respondents.
Bahadur, J.
1. This Government Appeal, under Sec. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is against an order of acquittal passed by a First Class Magistrate of Baghmara, in the district of Dhanbad. Three of the respondents, namely, respondents 1 to 3, were tried on charges under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and the fourth respondent namely, respondent No. 4, was tried on charge under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in substance, is that Mangilal Agarwalla (P. W. 5), the informant, has a wholesale cloth shop at Panchgarhi Bazar, within Police Station Katras, located in the house of respondent No. 1, on rent. On the night of the 13th and the 14th June 1962, when his shop was locked and was unattended to by his family members, a theft was committed by breaking open the locks of the shop. Mangilal Agarwalla learnt about the theft when he came to the shop next morning, on the 14th June 1962, and discovered that huge quantity of cloths worth about Rs. 8,000 was missing. He went to the Police Station, but as the Officer-in-charge was not present there, he informed about it to the constable who was on duty. It appears that the Junior Sub-Inspector of Katras Police Station (P. W. 6) was on Special Muhar-ram duty on the 14th June 1962, at about 7 a.m. at Panchgarhi. He received information about the theft in the shop of P. W. .5 in the preceding night. He, thereafter, reached the shop at about 7.30 a.m. and received a written report from Mangilal Agarwalla, which is marked as Ext. 7. He forwarded the same to Katras Police Station through Havildar Bhimeshwar Singh (P. W. 1) and a formal first information report was drawn up by the Officer-in-charge on its basis, which is marked as Ext. 8. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the Junior Sub-Inspector (P. W. 6) who examined the informant Mangilal Agarwalla. He inspected the place of occurrence which consisted of two rooms and they were full of cloths. He found that cloths were stolen from the room lying at the east of the house and they had been removed from the gap. Other disturbed state of the room and cloth due to removal were also noticed. He found that the electric pole had no bulbs and they were broken. He further found that three locks were found lying broken there, but he did not seize them as they did not appear to him to bear any finger prints. Respondent Madanlal Agarwallas residential house was in front of the shop of Mangilal Agarwalla (P. W. 5) from where the cloths had been stolen.
3. At about 10.30 P.M. on the same night, namely, 14th June 1962, the Junior Sub-Inspector (P. W. 6) got some confidential information about the storage of stolen articles and he, therefore, went to the spot along with Havildar Bhuneshwar Singh (P. W. 1) and some constables. At 11.30 P. M. the same night, P. W. 6 again received certain information about the storage of cloths. Next morning on the 15th June 1962, at about 4 A. M. the Sub-Inspector took down the statement of Madanlal Agarwalla and he also had talks with the other respondents, namely, Kedarnath Agarwalla, Khemi Ram and Bansi Goala. Respondent Kedarnath confessed that he had stolen cloth in complicity with accused Madanlal, Bansi and Khemi and stored them in the room behind his cloth shop, which he was prepared to show. Bansi and Khemi also confessed to P. W. 6 their guilt, whereupon P. W. 6 went to the room which was referred to by Kedarnath. Kedarnath opened the room which was bolted from within at its western exit. Kedarnath pointed out the cloths stored in that room and said that they were the stolen cloths. Madan Lal was also standing close to the room near its western exit which opened towards a lane. P. W. 6 seized seven gunny bags containing new cloths and one Ganth on which it was inscribed "Rajdut", "M. L. A.", "Shalimar" He also seized several pairs of Dhpties and other cloths and prepared a seizure list which is marked Ext. 9/1. Thereafter, at about 9 a.m. in
AI
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
