A person who is found in possession of stolen property soon after the theft is presumed to be a receiver of the stolen properties unless he or she can provide a satisfactory explanation for his or her possession.

JUDGEMENT :

This is an appeal by the State against an order dated 4-2-1963 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kuchinda, acquitting the respondent of offences under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code.

2. The accused Dhanmati Kisanin is the wife of the cousin brother of Dibyaraj Kisan, P.W. 1. The prosecution case is that on 28-8-1962, Dibyaraj, his wife Gharamani (P.W. 2) and his mother Jamuna (P.W. 3) went to their land for some agricultural operations. As there was none else in the house, they chained the door from outside. In the bed room of the house, there was a bamboo basket (Jumpi) containing various gold and silver ornaments as well as some cash which was locked. After working for sometime in the field, P.W. 2 came back home to see if her son had come back from school, and saw the doors of the house lying open and the Jumpi containing the valuables missing. She reported this matter to her husband, P.W. 1 and he came back home and found the Jumpi missing. Then they called the Chowkidar and some other villagers such as P.Ws. 6, 11 and 12 and told them about the occurrence. In the afternoon P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. at the police station. In course of investigation, the I.O. recovered some of the stolen articles from the house of the accused. The accused was thereafter charge-sheeted and tried for offences under Sections 454 and 380 Indian Penal Code.

3. The plea of the accused was one of denial. She, however, did not claim any of the alleged stolen properties to be her own.

4. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds :

(i) That there was discrepancy in the number of articles as mentioned in the F.I.R. and the articles as were actually recovered.

(ii) The ornaments found were articles of common use, and there was no special mark of identification.

(iii) No test identification parade of the articles was held by the police.

(iv) Recovery of the articles was not made in the manner contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the mere production of the articles by the accused was not enough.

(v) The articles recovered, were found in a premises not in exclusive possession of the accused.

5. Before I proceed to examine the correctness of the grounds adopted by the learned Magistrate, it is necessary to set out the facts in a little more detail.

6. It is the case of P.W. 1 that he along with his wife, mother and his brother's wife were the only adult members living in his house. On the date of occurrence, all of them went out in the morning to carry out the weeding operation in their field. Sometime after his wife, P.W. 2 came to the house to see if their son had come back from the school and after sometime, he was reported by P.W. 2 about the removal of the Jumpi from their house. So he lodged the F.I.R. giving a list of articles said to have been stolen together with their approximate value, mentioning therein also that his wife and mother can identify the same. P.W. 2 gave her story on the same line. P.W. 1 stated that immediately after the occurrence he reported the matter to P.W. 6 Lali Mohan Gountia, P.W. 11 Brundahan and P.W. 12 one Chandra Sekhar Panda and the latter two went to the place and saw where the Jumpi was kept. At about the same time another theft occurred in the house of P.W. 5 Kusa Kisan. So P.W. 5, P.W. 1 along with P.Ws. 11 and 12 went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. Thereafter police arrived at the spot, made necessary investigation and recovered some articles. P.W. 9 Bhadra Kisan has his Bari adjacent to that of Gura Kisan, father-in-law of the accused. According to P.W. 9 on the day following the occurrence he heard a sound like something falling into his bari and coming out he found a Jumpi lying near his ash-pot and suspecting that this might be a stolen property and being afraid of the consequences, he placed the Jumpi on the land of Ananda from where it was recovered by the I.O. under seizure list, Ext. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 6, 11 and 12. Accor