1987 Supreme(Raj) 394
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Milap Chand Jain, J.
Dinesh Chandra And Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1978.
Decided On : 08-01-1987
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Doongar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: G.M. Bhandari, PP.
Possession of stolen property soon after the commission of a dacoity raises a presumption that the possessor knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 412, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY FROM CAR - PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE - SENTENCE - REDUCTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Dinesh Chandra and Jagvir Singh, were convicted under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code for being in possession of stolen property. The prosecution's case was that the appellants were found in possession of a car containing stolen goods within 24 hours of a dacoity. The appellants denied involvement in the dacoity and claimed alibi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were in possession of the stolen property and that they knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen. The court relied on the testimony of the police officer who recovered the property and the motbir who witnessed the recovery. The court also considered the proximity of time between the dacoity and the recovery of the property, the manner in which the stolen property was found lying scattered inside the car, and the identification of the property by the victims.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were in possession of the stolen property. 2. Whether the appellants knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were in possession of the stolen property and that they knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen. The court relied on the following factors: (i) the testimony of the police officer who recovered the property and the motbir who witnessed the recovery; (ii) the proximity of time between the dacoity and the recovery of the property; (iii) the manner in which the stolen property was found lying scattered inside the car; and (iv) the identification of the property by the victims.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced their sentence to the period of their custody.
JUDGMENT
1. - The appellants Dinesh Chandra and Jagvir Singh have been convicted of the offence under Section 412, Indian Penal Code and each of then has been sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. They have been acquitted of the acquitted of the offence under Section 395, Indial Penal Code.
2. The occurrences are said to have taken place of 13-1-1972 near Ajmer and the other near village near village Gordhanvilas, 5-6-miles away from Udaipur. One Man math Bhai along with his wife Renukadevi, his young son and his two friends; Sures. Patel and Hasin Bhai were travelling in a Standard Car bearing Registration No. GJG 8222. The car was driven by Suresh Patel. An ambassador car came from behind when they were near Gordhanvilas. The driver of the ambassador car asked from side, which was given, thereafter the ambassador car stopped obstructing the road. The ambassador car was having registration D.L.J. No. 2573. Fore persons alighted from the ambassador car. One was having the handle, the other was having a knife and the remaining two were shouting that they would shoot with revolvers. They pounded upon the standard car. They broke off the wind screen and window pans of the Standard Car and they dragged out its occupants. They were robbed of their belongings. The robbers also got the dicky of the Standard Car opened. The Attachee (suit-case) and other belongings of the occupants of the Standard Car were removed by them and the same were placed in the ambassador car. They were seen wearing monkey caps. The robbers, there after, drove away their car. Manmath Bhai and his party thin reached Udaipur in a truck. Thereafter a report Ex. P 25 was lodged at the police station, Surajpole, Udaipur. As the case related to the jurisdiction of police Station 'Nai', the information was dispatched to that police station and formal FIR Ex. P 20 was drawn up at the police station Nai. The list of the stolen properties was also submitted by Manmath Bhai and his party. The superintendent of Police sent messages to his counterparts in the neighbouring districts. The S. P. Bundi also received such a message. He gave necessary directions to his subordinates. Shri S.N. Jairath, Addl. S.P. Bundi received this information in the evening on 14-1-1972 that an ambassador car was spotted on the Bijoliya Road at a distance of about 20 miles. Then he along with the police party proceeded towards that spot. He observed an ambassador car bearing registration No. CH 245, coming from the opposite side. That car was made to stop. Thereafter the car along with its three occupants were taken to the police station Bundi. The three occupants were Dinesh Chandra, Jagvir Singh and Gyan Singh. The car was subjected to search in the presence of motbirs and the seizure memo Ex. P 23 of the articles recovered from the car was prepared and the accused persons were also arrested The accused persons were then taken into custody by the Udaipur police along with the stolen property. Necessary investigation was conducted and thereafter, challan was submitted against 5 accused persons. Challan was presented in the absence of accused Subhash. Four accused persons were committed for trial and ultimately, the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The accused Gyan Singh absconded and eventually the case proceeded only against the remaining three accused persons namely Dinesh Chandra, Jagvir Singh and Karamchand. The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the three accused persons and ultimately acquitted all the accused persons of the offence under Section 395 Indian Penal Code. He however, convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 412 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the dacoity was committed at about 10 p. m. on 13th Jan. 1972 at a distance of about 5 miles from Udaipu
Click Here to Read the rest of this document