The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act requires corroborating evidence to establish the recovery of stolen property, necessitating scrutiny of witness credibility.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul in Criminal Appeal No.78 of 1990, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.1990 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in G.R. Case No.106 of 1989 (Trl. No.308 of 1989) was confirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30.08.1989 at about 10 a.m. in the village of Nimabahali, the accused committed house trespass at night by entering into the informant's building, Trilochan Sahoo, after the sunset and before the dawn in order to commit theft of gold articles, clothes, utensils, rice and cash dishonestly. The informant, after getting information, lodged an F.I.R. in the police station. On the basis of such allegation, the police registered the F.I.R and after the completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 457 /380 of the IPC. The petitioner, along with one Sukru Pradhan, was subjected to trial for the alleged charges against them under Sections 457 /380 of the IPC.

3. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses and exhibited seven documents. The plea of defence was that of complete denial. In proof of his plea, no evidence was adduced from the side of the defence. P.W.1 was the informant, whereas P.Ws.2 & 3 were the seizure witnesses. P.W.4 was the Special Judicial Magistrate before whom T.I. Parade was conducted. P.W.5 was the Investigating Officer.

4. The learned trial court analyzed the entire evidence on record and found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 457 /380 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years on each count for the offences punishable under Sections 457 /380 of the IPC and directed that both the sentences run concurrently.

5. The learned trial court relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 & 5, as those evidences stand corroborated with that of the seizure witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 & 2. The trial court came to the conclusion that on the disclosure of the accused persons before P.W.5, recovery was made in presence of P.Ws.2 & 3. Therefore, the learned trial court held that when any stolen articles are recovered from the possession of any persons, soon after the commission of theft, under Section 114(a) of the EVIDENCE ACT , the Court would presume that the person from whose custody the articles were recovered might be a thief or might be a receiver of the stolen articles. Pressing into service, the presumption provision under the EVIDENCE ACT , the accused persons were convicted under Sections 457 /380 of the IPC. For the said offences, the petitioner and the co-accused, Sukru Pradhan, were sentenced to undergo, for a period of two years, R.I. on each count and the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.1989 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Hindol in G.R. Case No.106 of 1989, the petitioner, along with co-accused, Sukru Pradhan, filed Criminal Appeal No.78 of 1990 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal. The Appellate Court rejected the appeal stating that the sentence of two years awarded to the petitioner was apposite.

7 . Since the appeal failed, the present petitioner alone has filed the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

8. Heard Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for