RAJ BHONGSHI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons were committed to the court of Sessions and charged under S. 457, 380 and 411, Indian penal code They were committed by the Magistrate as he found that the amount involved was large and he was not competent to award the required punishment. The prosecution case was that a burglary took place in the R. M. S. (Railway Mail Service) Office at Tezpur, on the night of the 20/11/1962, when the town was being evacuated due to the fall of Bomdila. There is no dispute that the burglary took place and a large amount of money was stolen. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Raj Bhongshi Prasad as no case was made out against him. Evidence led against him consisted in the main, of the following evidence. P. W. 14, bhupendra Chandra Sen, Sub-Inspector, searched the house of accused Roj bhongshi and he described the search as follows :

(2.) The State filed an appeal. The High court convicted accused Raj Bhongshi under Section 411, Indian penal code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years. This court granted spcial leave and now the appeal is before us.

(3.) The High court after noticing the evidence observed that "it is clear from the evidence that the house was small and consisted of two rooms. There were two other persons in the house, viz. one washerman and another man named Sheodani. The room from which the suit-case containing the money was recovered had two bed-steads. Obviously it was occupied by Raj bhongshi and Ramasis. They were both employees in the R. M. S. Office at Tezpur. They came together from Tezpur and Ramasis stayed with Raj bhongshi. Therefore, it can be held beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Raj Bhongshi knew about the money in the suit case and also that it was looted' from the R. M. S. Office. He was present when the money was recovered. In his examination under Section 342, Cr. P. C. , he said that he could not see what was found in the suit case. It was not his case that he did not know about the existence of currency notes in the suit case. All this goes to show his knowledge about the money in the suit case and such a huge amount kept in the suit case by a petty employee like Ramasis must have been known to accused Raj Bhongshi to be stolen property. He kept the suit case in his house to help Ramasis obviously for valuable consideration. In the result he is guilty under Section 411, Indian penal code" Section 411, I. P. O. , reads as follows: