STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal against the order of the Session Judge, Dehradun dated the 23rd March, 1965 by which he allowed the appeal of Trilok Chand against his conviction under Section 454, I. P. C, and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 awarded by Sri C. N. Srivastava, ' Magistrate First Class, Dehradun, and acquitted him. The learned Magistrate had directed that the amount of Rs. 2706 recovered from the house of the accused be paid to the complainant. The Sessions Judge directed on allowing the appeal that it be returned to the accused.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution in brief was that Inder Singh had a milk shop in his house in Doiwala, Police Circle Clement town, district Dehradun. He had collected money a few days earlier and had kept it in his cash box in the shop. It was a sum of Rs. 3200. On 13th January, 1964 at about 8 a. m. he went to the bus stand for going out, but by mistake left the milk measuring pot at the shop, and hence, sent his servant Babulal to bring it from the shop. Babulal on coming back informed him that the door of his shop had been broken open, cash box had also been opened and the money had been stolen. At 8. 30 a. m. on the same day Inder Singh lodged a first information report at Doiwala police station about the theft and stated that he suspected his neighbour Triloki for having committed the theft. The reference was to the accused Trilok Chand. On receiving the first information report Harbal Singh S. I. immediately proceeded to make a search of the house of Trilok Chand. He, however, found nothing incriminating in the house. It was then alleged that on 15th January, 1964 at about 7. 30 a. m. Trilok Chand went to Khem Chand (P. W. 2) and made a confession before him that he had stolen the money and the same had been concealed in his house. Khem Chand thereupon took him to Jagdish Prasad (P. W. 3) and before him it was alleged that Trilok Chand again made a confession of his guilt and in order to avoid prosecution promised to point out the money which lav concealed in his house so that it may be paid to complainant Inder Singh. Both Khem Chand and Jagdish Prasad then took him to Harbal Singh S. I. and it is said that before him Trilok Chand stated that money was concealed underground in his house. Then the S. I. and other witnesses wont to the house of Trilok Chand, and it is alleged that Trilok Chand dug the earth in a corner of his house and took out a bag which contained currency notes of Rs. 2706. The sum was handed over to the S. I. and a memo of recovery was prepared. Trilok Chand was prosecuted on the basis of these facts.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution believed the statements of Khem Chand and Jagdish Prasad about the confession made by Trilok Chand and convicted him under Section 454, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 100. The amount of of Rs. 2706 was directed to be returned to complainant Inder Singh. On appeal filed by Trilok Chand the learned Sessions Judge held that the confession alleged to have been made by Trilok Chand had not been proved. On a consideration of the evidence he held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentences awarded to him. The amount of Rs. 2706 was directed to be retured to the accused. The State of Uttar Pradesh has now filed the present appeal.