In cases of theft, the prosecution must provide strong evidence to establish the occurrence of the theft, including timely reporting, testimony from the owner of the stolen property, and proper identification of the recovered items.

Amaresh Kunwar Singh, J.-Heard the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The State has filed this appeal against the Judgment delivered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur on 23rd February, 1987 acquitting the respondents Amit and Jai Singh of the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as below:-Mahendra Singh was in the employment of Seth Durga Prasad Sabu who was living in House No. 16/A Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. According to the prosecution a Honda generator was stolen from the above mentioned house of Seth Durga Prasad Sabu. The first information report about the alleged theft was lodged at the Police Station on 18th June, 1985. In that report it was stated that sometime ago a Honda generator of red colour had been stolen from House No. 16/A, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. On the basis of the first information report submitted by Mahendra Singh, the Police registered the case and started investigation. Respondent Amit was arrested by the Police. He was interrogated and during interrogation, on 17th June, 1985 he gave information to the Police about a Honda generator and some other items which according to his information was lying in his own house. Respondent Amit volunteered to get the goods recovered from his house. The information was recorded by the Police on Exhibit-P--4A. At the instance of respondent Amit, eight articles including one generator were recovered from the house of respondent Amit. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents. The prosecution examined Devi Singh PW -I, Mahendra Singh PW-2, Gopal Krishan PW-3, Ramchandra PW-4, Sangsingh PW-5, Govind Ram PW-6, Parasmal PW-7 and Ratan Singh PW-8, in support of the prosecution accused respondents were examined under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondents of both charges on the ground that the offences were not proved beyond the doubt. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, held that the first information report was delayed by 15-20 days, Shri Sabu who stated to be the owner of the generator was not produced for examination in any report.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the reasons given by the learned lower Court for acquitting the respondents are not sufficient because the generator which is alleged to have been stolen from the garage of House No. 16/A Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur was recovered in pursuance of the information given by the respondent Amit. Mahendra Singh PW-2, who had personal knowledge about the theft of the generator has proved his report EXHIBIT-P--3, and produced the bill Exhibit-P--2, and identified the generator in the Court. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the respondents have not given any explanation as to how they came into possession of the generator which was recovered from the possession. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent explanation it should be held that the respondents committed the theft of the generator as alleged by Mahendra Singh PW-2.

6. I havecarefully considered the arguments as advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, It appears that on 1st July, 1985, the lower Court directed that the generator be given in the custody of Mahendra Singh PW-2 provided he furnishes a surety bond of Rs. 7,000/-the order of the lower Court does not contain any identification mark of the generator. The superdginama furnished by Mahendra Singh PW-2 describes S. No. of generator as “G K. 200”. It does not give any other identification mark of the generator. Mahendra Singh PW-2 has stated that he was told about the theft of the generator by the chowkidar, but it was not told to him whether the theft was committed during the day or at night. He has further added that the generator which was stolen is the same which was present in the Court on the date