Back
1987 Supreme(P&H) 242
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ujagar Singh, J.
Babu Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 354 of 1985.
Decided On : 23 March, 1987
For the Appellant :Mr. K. G. Chaudhry, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for A. G. (Punjab).
For an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code to be established, there must be proper identification of the stolen property and the accused must have known or had reason to believe that the property was stolen.
Headnote:
THEFT - SECTION 411, INDIAN PENAL CODE - IDENTIFICATION OF STOLEN PROPERTY - NECESSITY FOR PROPER IDENTIFICATION PARADE - DISHONEST RECEIPT OR RETENTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY - REQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OR REASON TO BELIEVE THE PROPERTY TO BE STOLEN.
Fact of the Case:
During the night of 10th and 11th June 1981, a theft occurred at the house of Zora Singh. The petitioner, Babu Singh, was arrested on 22nd February 1982, and during interrogation, he disclosed the location of the stolen ornaments. The ornaments were recovered and identified by the victims, Zora Singh and his daughter-in-law, Gurdial Kaur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification parade conducted by Sucha Singh P.W. 3 was meaningless and that there was no definite identification of the recovered ornaments as the stolen property. The court also found that there was no evidence that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the ornaments were stolen property.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification parade conducted by Sucha Singh P.W. 3 was valid and reliable. 2. Whether the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the ornaments were stolen property.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification parade conducted by Sucha Singh P.W. 3 was not valid and reliable because: a. Sucha Singh P.W. 3 did not state that the ornaments were identified before him by the witnesses. b. Sucha Singh P.W. 3 did not name Des Raj P.W.5 and Jit Singh P.W. 6 as the persons who were called for identification of the ornaments. c. There was no evidence on the file as to wherefrom the articles which are said to have been mixed were brought. d. Sucha Singh P.W.3 admitted that Zora Singh and Gurdial Kaur were already in the police station before his arrival. e. It was not shown that the ornaments were in a sealed parcel when produced before Sucha Singh P.W. 3. 2. The court held that there was no evidence that the petitioner knew or had reason to believe that the ornaments were stolen property because: a. The offence was committed during the night of 10th & 11th June, 1981 and the recovery was made after a lapse of more than 8 months. b. The ornaments did not have any special markings of identity. c. Des Raj P.W. 5 and Jit Singh P.W. 6 did not state that they did not prepare any such ornaments before or after the date of theft.
Final Decision: The court accepted the criminal revision petition, set aside the orders of conviction of the lower courts, and acquitted the petitioner of the charge. The court also ordered the refund of the fine, if paid, to the petitioner.
Ujagar Singh, J.- During the intervening night of 10th and 11th June. 1981 theft took place in the house of Zora Singh s/o Kartar Singh Jat of village Labhana Toku when he was sleeping in the chaubara thereof along with his children, after locking the door of the house. When in the early hours of the morning his wife Smt. Jagir Kaur got up and went towards the door it was found to be lying open with its lock broken. Her daughter Smt. Mohinder Kaur and her son Norang Singh stepped down and when they went inside the room they found the lock of the petti (box) containing clothes, articles and ornaments lying broken. The articles included kanta (golden), one pair of bangles (golden), one chain (golden) (belonging to the daughter of the complainant), one klip (golden), one tikka (golden), one golden kanta and one golden ring (belonging to Mohinder Kaur daughter of the complainant), two bangles (older,) ore necklace (golden), one pair of earrings (golden), one ring (golden), one kara (golden) belonging to Gurdial Kaur wife of the son of the complainant) besides clothes and one watch (H. M. T.), which was given to Gurjant Singh in his marriage. Report Exhibit P.A. was lodged and it was recorded by A.S.I. Gurbinder Singh (who has since expired) with an endorsement Exhibit P.A. 1. This formed the basis of F.I.R. Exhibit P A/2 recorded by M.H.C. Piara Lal. Spot was inspected and a seizure memo, Exhibit PC was prepared in token of taking into possession of some articles. Site plan Exhibit P.A, was prepared.
2. During investigation, Babu Singh petitioner was arrested on 22nd February, 1982 by Harjindarjit Singh, S.I. P.W. 4. On being interrogated by P.W. 4 Harinderjit Singh in the presence of one Zail Singh, Sarpanch and A.S.I. Bant Singh, the petitioner suffered a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed two gold necklaces, one pair or earrings (golden), one pair of silver chain one Tikka gold, one ring gold and some clothes and packed the same in a gathri (bundle) and placed the same under the turi in his house. This statement was recorded as Exhibit P.B. and in pursuance of this statement ornaments Exhibit P. 1, P. 2, P 3 and P. 4 were got recovered by the petitioner and taken into possession in a sealed parcel vide memo. Exhibit P.C. P W. 4 further stated that he got the ornaments identified from P.Ws. 5 & 6 Dosu and Jit goldsmiths after asking Sucha Singh Sarpanch for arranging identification parade, wherein Zora Singh and his daughter-in-law Gurdial Kaur also identified the ornaments.
3. The trial Court after recording the statements of Zora Singh P.W. 1 A.S.I. Bant Singh PW 2, Sucha Singh P W. 3, S,L Harinderjit Singh P.W. 4, Des Raj P.W. 5 and Jit Singh P.W. 6 found the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs, 1000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The petitioner went up in appeal and the lower appellate Court agreeing with the trial Court did not find any cause for interference and the petitioner has come up in this criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner has argued that the identity of the articles stolen is not established with the ornaments recovered. To support his argument, he has referred to the statements of Sucha Singh Sarpanch, P.W.1 who conducted the identification parade. I have been taken through the statement of Sucha Singh P.W. 3 and I find that he has nowhere said in his statement that the ornaments recovered and exhibited were identified before him by the witnesses. Moreover he has not named Des Raj P.W.5 and Jit Singh P.W. 6 as the persons who were called were him for identification of the ornaments or that these two witnesses identified the ornaments in his presence.
5. For identification of articles, it is necessary that the articles to be identified should not be accessible t
