MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against his conviction under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) AppellantTs conviction is solely based on discovery memorandum (Ex. P. 10) leading to the seizuer of a silver ingot (Art. A-3) and Sutiya (Art. A-I) from the possession of Vijayalal (P. W. 6). The prosecution alleges that the appellant gave memorandum (Ex. P. 10) on 13-5-1983 at about 17 Oclock to Station House Officer Bharat Singh (P.W. 11). The appellant thereafter led Bharat Singh in presence of witnesses Ghanshyamdas and Chintaman to the shop of Vijayalal (P.W. 6) on 14-5-1983 and at his instance the Station House Officer seized a silver ingot and Sutiya from him. From Vijayalal the police also seized a Register (Ex. P. 4) in which the relevant entry of alleged sale dated 12-4-1983 was made. These two articles along with others were put up for identification as per memo (Ex. P. 15), which was conducted by Ramsunder Singh (P.W. 12). Smt. Batasiya (P.W. 4) and Sukhmanti (P.W. 5) identified Sutiya as belonging to Sukhmanti. On these allegations appellant was prosecuted and eventually convicted, hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged memorandum and seizure of TSutiya from Vijayalal cannot be connected to the appellant. TSutiyaT is an ornament commonly available. Even if its identity is established, it is Vijayalal who should explain the possession of Sutiya. Learned Government supported the conviction and sentences.