PREM RAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicants before this Court, Prem Raj and his wife Naraini, have been convicted, the first Under Sec. 380 IPC and the second Under Sec. 411 IPC and have been sentenced to 18 month's RI and three months' RI respectively.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, which has been accepted by the courts below, Sri Ram Murti, Secretary, District Board, Pilibhit, had kept Rs. 11,600/ -in the form of currency notes in bundles. He had signed the first note of each bundle and had kept them in a bag (Ex. 2) which was placed in a box (Ex. 1). The box containing the money, which had been obtained as price of paddy crop sold by the complainant, was stolen. The complainant on coming back to his agricultural farm had discovered the theft. Suspicion having been directed towards, the peon Ram Charan, the peon was handed over to the police and interrogated. Ram Charan, who was also tried with the Applicants and convicted, took the police first to his own house, from where Rs. 4,500/ - were recovered on his pointing out. Ram Charan then directed the attention of the police towards Prem Raj, another peon, who was looked for but found to be missing. Thereupon, the police, on the suggestion of Ram Charan, went to the village and house of Prem Raj. At that house, they found Smt. Nanhi, the mother of Prem Raj and Smt. Naraini, the wife of Prem Raj. When the Investigating Officer asked Smt. Nanhi about the stolen money, she said, according to an entry in the recovery memo (Ex. 9), that the money brought by her son was handed over to her and had been given by her to her daughter -in -law, Smt. Naraini, Applicant, to keep. Smt Nanhi brought out a key with which the lock of a Kotha was opened. After that, the Applicant Smt. Naraini, produced the actual stolen box (Ex. 1) and also the key with which it was opened. The remaining sum of Rs. 7,100/ - was recovered from it. The entry in the recovery memo was only admissible to prove knowledge by the accused from whom recovery was made of the place where the money was kept. The character of possession of the box by Smt. Naraini had to be inferred from other facts. As the house was owned by Nand -ram, father of Prem Raj, he was also convicted Under Sec. 411 IPC and sentenced to six months' RI together with his wife Smt. Nanhi.

(3.) The lower appellate court had acquitted Nandram and Smt. Nanhi quite rightly. It, however, took the view that the possession of money by the wife was the possession of the husband. It, therefore, maintained the convictions of the two Applicants although it reduced the sentence of Smt. Naraini from six months' RI to three months' RI. It has been contended before me that there is no evidence to show that Prem Raj was either a thief or in possession of the money so that no presumption Under Sec. 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act could be raised against him. As regards the Applicant Smt. Naraini, it was contended that her possession could not be said to be on her own account even if it could be held to have been proved. It was also argued, on the strength of Khushi Ram v/s. Emperor, 1922 ALJ 162 and Dharma Singh Mangal Singh v/s. State : AIR 1961 P&H 30, that the mere handing over of a key of a box by a wife could not establish that she was in possession on behalf of her husband. The contentions are conflicting. If the wife was not herself in possession, on the ground that it must have the money been given to her for keeping, the money could only be handed over by the husband to her.