STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHAND SIKANDAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, on 27th March, 1973, reversing the order of conviction and sentence for offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. One Gojabai was residing at village Kotawade in taluka Vita, district Sangli, She was found to have been murdered on 21st January, 1971, when she had been to a field for grazing her cattle, One Bhau Tatya Yadav was found to have committed her murder. She was wearing a golden Vajratik on her person at the time, when she was so murdered. This was disclosed in the very first information report conveyed to the Police Patil of Kotawade, who had also rushed to the scene of offence to find that the thread and the bunch of yarn of such Vajratik was lying in the said field, where the deceased was done to death. Bhau Tatya Yadav was charge-sheeted after investigation of the said murder of Gojabai, tried and convicted In the course of the investigation of the said case, it transpired that the accused had received Vajratik. Accordingly the accused was arrested on 24th January, 1971, presumably at the instance of Bhau Tatya, the accused in the main murder case. Investigation Officer, P.S.I. Wankhede, took Bhau Tatya to Karad, where the accused was staying. In the presence of panchas, he made a statement showing where the stolen property was kept by him. The loose Beeds and two boxes and part of the Vajratik were discovered by him from behind a photo from a house to which he had taken the P.S.I. and panchas. He also then made a statement to the effect that base of the Vajratik and the thread of the ornaments were thrown by him in the gutter in front of the house of one Annasaheb Jadhave and then he led the police and the panchas to the said house and produced the said articles. Panchanama (Exhibit 25) was drawn immediately and he was charge-sheeted and tried by the Magistrate in due course.

(2.) At the trial, the prosecution relied on the discovery evidence consisting of P.S.I. Wankhede and the two panchas Bhopate and Madane. Goldsmith Potdar also was examined, who was called to weigh the golden beeds. Three witness-Sugandha, Tanubai and Housabai were examined to identify the ornaments.

(3.) The learned trial Judge accepted the evidence of these witnesses on the question of identity and held that what was discovered at the instance of the accused was the loose gold Beeds and the two boxes of the Vajratik, which article was stolen from the person of Gojabai, when she was done to death. The accused in hid statement under section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied the factum of having led the police and the panchas to the place from which the property is claimed to have been discovered as also the fact of having received the said articles. He disclaimed any connection with the said articles. Both the panchas had turned hostile. The goldsmith also appears to have been won over by the accused, However, the trial Judge relied on the evidence of the P.S.I. and found that the panchanama (Exhibit 25) corroborated his evidence, though the panchas were found to have been won over by the accused. He thus held the accused guilty of the offence under section 411 I.P.C and acquitted the accused for offence under section 414 of the I.P.C.