Bhargava, J.— The appellant has been convicted under sec. 441 I.P.C. and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali.

2. Briefly the prosecution case is that a robbery took place on 24th June, 1958 in village Sirma at the house of one Birdhichand Mahajan at about sun-set. During the course of this robbery Mst. Sunder sister of Birdhichand was relieved of her ornaments, and some other ornaments lying in a Katordan were taken away by the robbers. One of the robbers who remained standing outside the house of Bridhichand is side to have relieved Mst. Zamkoo mother of Birdhichand of her ornaments while she was coming back to the house after attending the call of nature. The report of the incident was made on the morning of 25th June, 1958 at Raipur Police Station and after investigation three persons namely Jodhsingh, Kalyansingh and Koopsingh were challaned under sec. 394 of the Indian Penal Code and the present appellant under sec.412 I.P.C. and in the alternative under sec.411 I.P.C. All these four persons were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali and after trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Jodhsingh, Kalyansingh and Koopsingh of offence under sec. 394 I.P.C. but convicted Tejsingh appellant under sec. 411 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 18 months rigorous imprisonment

3. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the evidence of recovery of silver ornaments Ramjol Ex. 1, Kanora Ex.2, Kanora Ex. 3, a bunch of keys Ex.4 and Jor Ex.5 from a place near Beri Gundani at the instance of the appellant on 5.10.1958. The appellant was Formally arrested in this case on 3.10.1958 and is said to have given a statement before the investigating officer on the same day which led to this discovery. The statement given by the appellant is Ex. P8. The accused denied having given any information relating to the discovery of the things. The learned Sessions Judge treating the statement admissible under sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act held that the appellant himself was responsible for concealing these articles at the place from where they were recovered. These articles were identified by Mst. Sundar, Mst. Zamkoo and Birdhichand prosecution witnesses as belonging to them. The learned Sessions Judge in coming to the above conclusion relied upon a ruling of this Court in State vs. Indraj (1).

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the appellant cannot be said to be in possession of the articles which are alleged to have been recovered at his instance from an open place accessible to all and sundry. It is urged that some portion of the statement Ex. P8 on which reliance has been placed by the learned Sessions Judge is not admissible in evidence and the only portion which is admissible in evidence does not disclose that it was the accused who concealed the articles at that place. It only discloses that the articles were lying concealed there. Reliance is placed in this connection on Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor (2) and Trimbak vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (3). Before deciding the question of admissibility of the statement Ex. P. 8 it is necessary to state its contents. The statement can be divided into two parts. In the first part the accused stated that Koopsingh had given him ornaments which are described in the statement. In the second part he stated the ornaments are lying buried under a Dhok tree over the top of a hillock near Beri Gundani. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the whole statement in evidence and from the first part of the statement drew the inference that since the ornaments are admitted to have been received by him from Koopsingh one of the robbers he must be taken to have concealed the ornaments at the place of recovery. While admitting in evidence the statements made by the accused before the police officers leading to recovery courts often lose sight of the fact that under sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence that part of the statement only which dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document