UMA SHANKER Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed by applicant complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in brief "the Code") against the judgment dated 19-3-2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur whereby by allowing the appeal of respondent No. 2, the findings and direction regarding final custody of the seized articles and ornaments was given in favour of applicant by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsinghpur vide Judgment dated 29-1-1998 in Criminal Case No. 578/97 has been set aside and such custody has been directed in favour of respondent No. 2. Hence, this revision is preferred to restore the findings of trial Court by setting aside the judgment of said appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that on dated 13-9-1994 at about 9.30 to 10 p.m. after taking dinner the applicant Uma Shankar and other family members had slept on roof and other places of his house. At about 3.00 O'clock in late night the father of applicant got up and found the doors of room open then he called applicant and on entering to inside the room it was seen that after mismanaging the household goods some unknown person have taken away the box in which valuable golden and silver ornaments and cash were kept. The incident was reported to Police Kareli on which an offence under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code was registered as Crime No. 332/94 in which the entire description of stolen property was mentioned as complainant by applicant.

(3.) ON framing charges under Section 411, Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2 and one other accused and under Sections 457, 380, Indian Penal Code against other accused. In order to prove the incident prosecution examined as well as seven witnesses and by examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code, on appreciation the factum of theft regarding said properties from the house of applicant was found proved but by giving benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case all accused including respondent No. 2 have been acquitted. By the same judgment as per para 18 it was also directed that seized property be given to the applicant on producing the documentary proof but after the period of appeal.