SMT. OM WATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 29 -1 -1966 whereby certain ornaments which were the property seized in a case Under Section 395 IPC were after the decision of the case to be made over to the complainant.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that a dacoity was alleged to have been committed in the night between 29th and 30th July, 1962 at the house of one Bhukam Saran, resident of Siana district Bulandshahr. A report was lodged at police station Siana that very night at about 4 a.m. and no list of the looted property was given in the report itself. However, Bhukam Saran prepared a separate list of the looted property at about 5 a.m. and he delivered the same to the Investigating Officer who reached the spot at about 6 a.m. On 27 -9 -1963, Sri Jai Pal Singh, Station Officer of Police -Station Pahasu went to village Saleempur for the arrest of Ganga Saran in connection with the said dacoity. In the night between 27 and 28 -9 -1963 an attempt was made to arrest Ganga Saran and in the encounter Ganga Saran was killed at about 3.30 a.m. In the morning at about 9.30 a.m. the police party with some witnesses of the locality entered the house of Ganga Saran for taking search. At that time his wife, namely, Smt. Omwati the Appellant, was present and at her instance a portion of the floor of the room was dug. From there ornaments Exts. I to XIV were recovered. They were sealed on the spot and recovery memo was duly prepared. The recovered articles were put up for identification on 6 -1 -1964 and on 1 -5 -1964 and some of them were correctly identified; by the witnesses. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against Smt. Omwati.

(3.) AFTER a consideration of the entire evidence in the case the learned Sessions Judge held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The finding was that the ornaments were recovered, as alleged by the prosecution, from under the ground but they might have been so hidden by Ganga Saran or his father after the dacoity and in the circumstances of the case knowledge of the concealment of the property alleged to have been looted in the dacoity could not be attributed to the Appellant. On that basis she was acquitted.