Mohmed Inayatullah vs State Of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1975 Supreme(SC) 338

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Mohmed Inayatullah, Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1971
Decided on 9-9-1975.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. R. Chaudhary, S. L. Setia, K. Rajendra Chaudhury and Mrs. Veena Khanna, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Respondent. 484

Advocates:
H.R.KHANNA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.N.SHROFF, S.L.SETHI, VINA KHANNA

Headnote:Evidence Act (1872), Sec. 27 - Scope of - Relevancy of the information furnished by the accused - Conditions necessary for proof - Adverse inference when can be drawn.
       When the accused made a confession, which led to discovery of the stolen drums from the compound of a Musafirkhana, while in police custody but the accused denied his confessions during the trial and concurrent finding of the courts was that the drums were discovered in consequence of the information given by him while in police custody and as such he would be presumed to be a thief;
       Held, that the first condition necessary for bringing this section into operation is that discovery of fact, albeit a relevant fact, in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in police custody. The last but the most important condition is that only "So much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" is admissible. The rest of the information has to be excluded. The phrase "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered" is the linchpin of the provision. This phrase refers to that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The reason behind this partial lifting of the ban against confessions and statements made to the police, is that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given by the accused it offends some guarantee of truth of that part, and that part only, of the information which was clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery. After splitting the portion of the statement and separating the admissible from inadmissible portion or portions, only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excused and rejected. Taking this view of the matter the admissible portion of the information was not sufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the thief or receiver of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. It was not alleged by the prosecution much less proved-that the drums were lying concealed or that the compound was under the lock and key of the accused. The place, being a Musafirkhana, 'was from its very nature accessible to all and sundry. Thus the fact proved by the prosecution would give rise to two alternative hypothesis; (1) that it was the accused who had himself deposited the stolen drums in the Musafirkhana, or (ii) the accused only knew that the drums were lying at that place. The second hypothesis was wholly compatible with his innocence and in the ultimate analysis the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 10, 13 & 16)
       Evidence Act (1872), Sec. 114 - Illustration (a) when to be revoked - Inference of the guilt of the accused when to be drawn.
       Held, that it must be remembered that an inference under sec. 114, illustration (a) should never be reached unless it is a necessary inference from the circumstance of the case, which can not be explained on any other hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused. (Para 15).

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case of Mohmed Inayatullah vs. The State of Maharashtra:

Case Details: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the charge of theft under Section 379 of the Penal Code. The case was decided on 9-9-1975 by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria. (!) (!)
Facts of the Offence: The appellant was charged with stealing three drums containing phosphorous pentaoxide from the Bombay Port Trust premises on 1-8-1968. The theft was reported by the Shed Superintendent, who noted the car number and the time of the incident. (!) [1000168470001]
Police Custody and Discovery: The accused was taken into police custody. In the presence of police officers and Panchas, he made a statement (Ex. C) and led them to a Musafirkhana in Crawford Market where the stolen drums were found. The drums were identified as the stolen ones. [1000168470018] (!) [1000168470003]
Defense Plea: The appellant pleaded denial of the prosecution case. His counsel argued that the courts below misconstrued the statement made by the accused and used more of it than permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. [1000168470005][1000168470007]
Section 27 Analysis (The "Linchpin"): The Court held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires strict adherence to conditions. Only "so much of the information" as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible. The rest must be excluded. The phrase "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered" refers to the part of the information that is the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. (!) [1000168470010]
Splitting the Statement: The Court analyzed the accused's statement: "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August."
- Admissible Portion: "I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums." This was the immediate cause of discovery.
- Inadmissible Portion: "which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first August." This constituted past history/confession of theft, not the direct cause of discovery, and was ruled out of evidence. [1000168470012][1000168470013]
Section 114 Analysis (Presumption of Guilt): The Court held that an inference of guilt under Section 114, Illustration (a) should never be drawn unless it is a necessary inference that cannot be explained on any other hypothesis. [1000168470015] (!)
Alternative Hypotheses: Since the drums were found in a Musafirkhana (a place accessible to all and sundry, not under the lock and key of the accused), two hypotheses were possible:
1. The accused deposited the drums himself.
2. The accused only knew the drums were lying there. The second hypothesis was compatible with innocence. [1000168470014][1000168470016]
Benefit of Doubt: Because the admissible portion of the statement (locating the drums) did not prove the accused was the thief or receiver, and because alternative hypotheses existed, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. [1000168470016]

JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:—This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Bombay upholding the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 379, Penal Code. The facts are these:

The appellant was tried in the court of the Presidency Magistrate 5th Court, Dadar on the charge of committing theft of three drums containing phosphorous pentaoxide, valued at Rs. 300/-, from the premises of the Bombay Port Trust on 1-8-1968 at 8.40 A. M.

2. The First Information Report of the theft lodged with the police by Murari Bhikaji Bidya (PW 1) Shed Superintendent of Haji Bunder, at 9.15, was as follows:

"Today in the morning at about 8 a.m., I reported for duty at Haji Bunder. At about 8.40 A.M. or so, the Canteen boy named Shri Babu Durga came to me and informed me that one M/Car had come inside Haji Bunder and removed 3 small drums which were lying between A Shed and Canteen in an open place along with several drums. I immediately asked Shri Joshi the gate-keeper who was present in my office at that particular time, to go out and see what was the matter. After some time Shri Joshi came to my office and informed me that before he could reach the gate, the car had already left however, he has noted down the number of the Car as 6649. He further told me that he shouted to stop the car but the driver of the said car drove away the car at a fast speed. I then went in the open place in between A Shed and Canteen where the drums were lying when the above said Canteen boy showed me a gap in between bigger-size drums from where the small drums were removed..........."

3. Sub-Inspector Thorat PW 7, conducted the investigation. After making inquiries from the Regional Transport Office, he traced the owner of the car, BML 6649, and requested him to send his car-driver to the Police station. Accordingly, the driver, Babu Vithal (PW 5), accompanied by the accused (appellant) appeared before the Sub-Inspector in the Police Station on September 26, 1968. The Sub-Inspector took the accused into custody. He then called the Panchas (including PW 6) and, in their presence, interrogated the accused who made a statement which was recorded by the Sub-Inspector. Rendered into English, this statement (incorporated in the Pnachnama Ex. C) reads:

"I will tell the place of deposit of the three Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on 1st August."

4. The accused then led the Police Officer and the Panchas to a Musafirkhana in Crowford Market and pointed out the three drums lying there, bearing the markings, ACC I Phosphorous Pentaoxide . Thereafter, the drums were identified by PW 1 as the same which had been stolen.

5. Among others, the prosecution examined M. Bhikaji (PW 1), the informant, Vishnu Sakharam (PW 2), the Gate-keeper, Govindji (PW 3) the Clearing Agent and Rasal Mohd. (PW 6), a panch witness of the discovery. The driver of the car BML 6649 was also put in the witness-box as PW 5. He turned hostile and the prosecution cross-examined him to impeach his credit.

6. The plea of the appellant was one of plain denial of the prosecution case.

7. The courts below have concurrently found these facts:

1. That three drums had been stolen from the shed of the Bombay Port Trust on 1-8-1968 at 8.40 A. M.

2. That the drums in question were the same that had been stolen.

3. That these drums were discovered in consequence of the information (vide Ex. C) given by the accused whilst in police custody.

4. That such information, as admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act, showed that the accused was admittedly in possession of these stolen drums on 26-9-1968 and therefore, under illustration (a) of Section 114, Evidence Act, he would be presumed to be the thief.

8. Mr. Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the first two 485 findings. But he forcefully assails the third and the fourth. His contentions are: (a) that the courts below have not only misconstrued the statement made by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1975 Supreme(SC) 338

Cases Referred (1)