RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 22-3- L977 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant under Section 411 IPC.

(2.) IT appears that on the night of 11/12-8-72 a theft was committed at the house of one Gendan Lal of village Khanpur, P. S. Fatehganj, district Baneilly. In that theft Gendan Lal had lost his gun No. 81743 and some cartridges. A report about this theft was made, but nothing fruitful came out of it. On the night of 29/30-1-73 the police of P. S. Faridpur arrested some Badmashes from a grove in village Sarkara. One of the badmashes so arrested was the applicant. He was searched and a gun bearing no. 81743 was recovered from his possession. That gun belonged to Gendan Lal. Thereafter the usual investigation folio wed and eventually the applicant was sent up to stand his trial under Section 411 IPC.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at sufficient length and after doing so I am firmly of the view that this revision must be allowed. Even if it be assumed for a moment that stolen gun No. 81743 belonging to Gendan Lal had been recovered from the possession of the applicant, I do not think, on the basis of the evidence on record, any offence under Section 411 IPC can be said to have been made out against him. In Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 39, (their Lordships have remarked that the following things must be proved before a person could be convicted of an offence under Section 411, IPC: