MARUTI BHANUDAS KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused was charged for an offence punishable under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 1, Pune, and the prosecution claimed that a theft took place between November 21, 1974 and September 7, 1979 at the house of Maniklal Baldota (P.W. 1) of two wrist watches and some gold and silver ornaments. Maniklal is residing at House No. 388, Raviwar Peth, Pune and is running a gold-smiths shop. The complainant Maniklal claims that in December 1974 he had kept a watch in his cupboard along with certain gold bangles and when he opened the cupboard in December 1977, he found that the two items were missing. The accused was arrested on October 1, 1978 in respect of commission of some other offence and it is the prosecution case that thereafter the watch was recovered from Suresh (P.W. 6) and bangles from Dattatraya (P.W. 4). A complaint was lodged by Maniklal on October 3,1978 and thereafter the accused was charge-sheeted.

(2.) The prosecution in support of its case examined Maniklal (P.W. 2), Suresh (P.W. 6) and Dattatraya (P.W. 4). Suresh claims that he had purchased the wrist watch from Tarabai (P.W. 3) and Tarabai stated that she had sold the wrist watch sometime in the year 1976-77 at the instance of the accused. The bangles were sold by Shejval to Dattatraya and it is claimed that sale was also at the instance of the accused in the year 1975. The accused denied the commission of the offence and claimed that he was falsely involved. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the accused under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code holding that the evidence of Tarabai and Shejval that the watch and the bangles were sold at the instance of the accused was acceptable. The trial Magistrate released the accused on his entering a bond of Rs. 1000/-.

(3.) The accused carried an appeal before the Sessions Court, Pune and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated June 25, 1981 altered the conviction to one under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code while retaining the order of release of the accused on probation of good conduct. The Additional Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the accused either sold or associated in sale of the stolen property and, therefore, the conviction under section 414 was not maintainable. The Sessions Judge, thereafter observed that there was an unimpeachable evidence to show positively that the accused was found in recent possession of the stolen property knowing it to be stolen and, therefore, the conviction could be properly recorded under section 411 of this Indian Penal Code.