Back
2019 Supreme(Chh) 1016
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Vimla Singh Kapoor, J.
PUSHPANATH - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH P S BASNA, DISTRICT MAHASAMUND (C G ) - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2010
Decided On : 04-12-2019
J.A. Lohani, Advocate, Raghvendra Verma, Advocate
Theft under Section 379 IPC can be established based on the recovery of stolen property from the accused's possession and the lack of evidence showing ownership of the property.
Headnote:
Theft - Ownership of stolen property - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for theft under Section 379 IPC based on the recovery of stolen wire from the accused's field and the lack of evidence showing ownership of the wire by the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant lodged an FIR alleging theft of wire from his field, which was later found to be used by the accused in their field for operating a pump. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 379 IPC, which was subsequently modified by the lower Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, including the recovery of the stolen wire from the accused's field and the lack of proof of ownership, supported the conviction of the accused for theft under Section 379 IPC.
Issues: Ownership of stolen property, sufficiency of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of stolen property from the accused's possession and the lack of evidence showing ownership of the property supported the conviction under Section 379 IPC.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused for theft under Section 379 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Vimla Singh Kapoor, J. - Facts of the case in brief are that complainant Tejkumar Sahu lodged FIR Ex.P-1 in Police Station Basna, alleging therein that in the intervening night of 16-17/01/2004, 10 MM wire of Kent company connected with the bore well installed in his field was stolen by unknown person. The matter was inquired and it was found that the theft wire belonging to the complainant was used by the applicants in their field for operating tube well pump. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants under Section 379 IPC.
2. By the judgment dated 03.09.2009 learned trial Court convicted the accused/applicants under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each. The findings recorded by the trial Court have subsequently been modified by the lower Appellate Court by the judgment impugned and it is that which is under challenge in this revision.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Courts below have committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused/applicant as mentioned above though the evidence led by the prosecution was lacking and therefore, the same may be set aside. He submits that Courts below completely overlooked that the material on record and erroneously convicted and sentenced the accused/applicants as mentioned above.
4. State counsel, however, supports the judgment impugned.
5. The material on record including the evidence of PW-2 the lodger of the report goes to show that the wire used by the accused/applicants for operating his own tube well pump was recovered from his filed but he could not produce any bill or receipt showing his ownership over the same. The person from whom the accused/applicant is said to have purchased the said wire has also denied any such sell by him. Seizure of the wire made from the field of the applicant get corroboration from the evidence of PW-4 and PW-22. All other witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution and there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve or discard the same. Thus, the evidence on record is well enough to uphold the conviction of the accused/applicants for the offence under Section 379 IPC and it is done so.
