The recovery of stolen property from the possession of an accused person raises a presumption of theft or receiving stolen property, but this presumption can be rebutted by the accused's explanation.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - 458, 392 read with 397, 411 IPC - Identification of Accused - Recovery of Stolen Property - Presumption of Theft or Receiving Stolen Property - Conviction under Section 411 IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under sections 458 and 392 read with section 397, I.P.C. for housebreaking and robbery, and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of poor visibility during the incident, lack of adequate light, and the fact that his face was covered with a cloth, making identification difficult.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the identification of the appellant was unreliable due to poor visibility and the fact that the appellant's face was covered. The court also found that the recovery of the stolen wristwatch from the appellant's house at his instance and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act raised a presumption of theft or receiving stolen property, but this presumption was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that he had received the watch from someone else.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification of the appellant was reliable. 2. Whether the recovery of the stolen wristwatch from the appellant's house raised a presumption of theft or receiving stolen property. 3. Whether the appellant's explanation that he had received the watch from someone else was sufficient to rebut the presumption of theft or receiving stolen property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification of the appellant was unreliable due to poor visibility and the fact that the appellant's face was covered. 2. The court held that the recovery of the stolen wristwatch from the appellant's house at his instance and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act raised a presumption of theft or receiving stolen property. 3. The court held that the appellant's explanation that he had received the watch from someone else was sufficient to rebut the presumption of theft or receiving stolen property.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's convictions and sentences under sections 458 and 392 read with section 397, I.P.C., and acquitting him of the said charges. The court convicted the appellant for the offence under section 411, I.P.C. (receiving stolen property) and sentenced him to the term already undergone by him.

JUDGMENT

1. -This is an appeal filed by Bacchan Singh against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, convicting him under sections 458 and 392 read with section 397, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

2. The incident that led to the prosecution of the appellant and two other co-accused, namely, Magha Singh and Om Prakash, who have been acquitted by the trial Judge, may be briefly stated as follows:-

3. On October 11,1974, Gauri Shanker lodged a verbal report of an incident of robbery with the police station Sadar Ganganagar. It was alleged by the informant that he was sleeping as usual on a cot in his room after taking his food at 8 00 p.m. His wife also was sleeping in front of the door of the room on a cot. The door of the room was opened and there was light of a lantern in the room. At about 1.30 a.m. Gauri Shanker woke up on account of a rattling sound. He saw that two persons were taking out articles from his box inside the room and one person was standing by the side of the cot of his wife having pressed the mouth of his wife with his hand. Gauri Shanker claimed to have asked the two persons as who they were. Thereupon, one of them, having a Gandasi with him, moved a few steps towards Gauri Shanker and asked the latter to continue to lie quietly and, in case, otherwise he would be killed Out of fear Gauri Shanker kept quiet but his wife began to raise a hue and cry probably under an impression that her husband had been killed by the thieves. Gauri Shankers mother and grand-mother also were sleeping outside the house. They also raised an outcry. Thereupon, one of the two persons who was taking out goods from the box, stole away one roamer wrist watch which was lying in the attached of Gauri Shanker and put the watch in his pocket and went away from there with one radio transistor of 3 bands. The other person having a Gandasi with him also followed his associate. On seeing them running, Gauri Shanker ran after them and caught hold of one of them by his leg while the latter was making an attempt to jump over the wall of the courtyard. The thief, the reupou, called his companions. The fourth thief, who was keeping watch outside the house, climbed over the wall, fired a shot from his pistol, jumped in the courtyard, lighted the torch and began to load his pistol. The fourth thief cried aloud and asked Gauri Shanker at the point of pistol to release his companions from his grip. Out of fear Gauri Shanker left the thief whose foot he had caught hold of. Thereafter both the thieves jumped over the wall and ran away. On hearing the cries of his wife, mother and grand-mother, a good number of inhabitants of the village came there and immediately ran after the thieves in different directions. The thieves threw away the radio transistor in the way. Gauri Shanker checked his goods and found one roamer wrist watch, one radio transistor and some currency-notes missing from his room. The thieves while running away from the place of occurrence left their goods, namely, one Chhaddar, one Gandasi, one battery and one Sabbal and two pairs of shoes.

4. The verbal report given by Gauri Shanker was reduced to writing by the police and usual investigation into the case was taken up. In the course of investigation, Suraj Prakash in charge of the police station Sadar, Ganganagar. arrested Om Prakash, Co-accused, on November 3, 1974 and recovered one pistol from a Phalla' situated in Killa No. 9 belonging to one Bhawan Das at the instance of Om Prakash and in consequence of his information recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Likewise, on December 17 1974, Suraj Prakash Sharma arrested another co-a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1983 Supreme(Raj) 306

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHKalyan Dutta Sharma, J.Bacchan Singh - AppellantVersusThe State of Rajasthan - RespondentS. B. Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1977.against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated May 16, 1977, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1975.Decided On : 15-03-1983

The recovery of stolen property from the possession of an accused person raises a presumption of theft or receiving stolen property, but this presumption can be rebutted by the accused's explanation.