UDHO RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Udho Ram, the applicant, challenging his conviction under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the prosecution case, the applicant's daughter-in-law was related to the wife of Kalyan Rai. Kalyan Rai was the resident of village Kaunandan whereas the applicant was the resident of village Paradauli which lies at a distance of seven or eight miles from Kaunandan. Kalyan Rai was issueless. According to the case of the prosecution, on 27th of July, 1972 when Kalyan Rai was not present in his house, Udho Ram, the applicant, went there and represented to Uma Devi wife of Kalyan Rai that he had brought a Mahatma with him who was capable of blessing her with riches and children and as his daughter-in-law had received the benefit of Mahatma's blessing, she could also avail of his services. On the aforesaid representation being made by the applicant, Uma Devi arranged for Puja and invited Babu Ram, Nanak Chand and Nanhey Mai for the purposes of participating in it. As the Puja commenced, Udho Ram asked Uma Devi to bring her clothes and gold ornaments. On these articles being brought, he kept the ornaments locked and got them placed in the Puja. The key of the lock, however, was kept by the applicant with himself. After sometime he asked every one present in the puja to close his eyes and concentrate on the Mahatma. This was complied with. After sometime when people were asked to open their eyes, Uma Devi was told by Udho Ram that the box was not to be opened for about 24 hours. Uma Devi was also warned by Udho Ram that in case the box was opened within 24 hours, the husband of Uma Devi was likely to lose his eyes and would become blind. On that day Udho Ram and the Sadhu stayed at the house of Uma Devi and took their meals there. In the early morning, however, when Uma Devi woke up she found the applicant and the Sadhu missing from the house. This created suspicion in her mind and consequently she opened the box but found that the jewellery kept therein was missing. It was thereupon that Kalyan Rai who had gone to Bareilly was informed about the incident who thereafter came back to his village and lodged a first information report in the police station on 29th July, 1972. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that the delay in lodging the FIR was indicative of the concoction of case against him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant could not urge that the findings of fact about the applicant having gone to the house of Kalyan Rai on 27th July, 1972 were incorrect or that the complainant was not deprived of the jewellery and ornaments on the aforesaid date by the applicant. In my opinion, it was rightly so done as the findings of the two courts are findings based on the appraisal of evidence and thus being findings of fact could not be assailed in the present revision. It is settled position in law that the High Court while deciding a criminal revision has a restricted power of considering whether the judgments rendered by the courts below are erroneous in law or not. It in fact, exercises the power of a supervisory nature and cannot embark upon reappraisal of evidence. It was, however, urged by Sri Keshav Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that offence of which the applicant might be found guilty was at the most that of Section 403 I.P.C. and, therefore, his conviction under Section 420 I.P.C. was bad in law. In older to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, it may be worthwhile to reproduce Sections 403, 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.