DIWANSINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is at the instance of the two accused-applicants who seek to challenge their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 700/- each in default of payment of which to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months each.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the prosecution are as below: Ranjit Singh, the complainant, was going to his mother-inlaw's place in village Barahet for bringing her. He was riding on a mare. When he reached by the side of the river, the two accused persons who were having sticks fixed with iron spears forcibly took the mare away from him and asked him to tell his master that he may take back the mare from the village of the accused persons. It was also suggested that there was some ill-will between the accused Dewansingh and Babusingh in the context of breakdown of the negotiations of marriage of Babu Singh's son with the daughter of accused Dewansingh. Ranjit Singh had stated that the accused persons came to him. They were holding sticks fixed with iron spears. They forcibly took away the mare from him and proceeded towards their village Vamroli across the river. Ranjit Singh who was a young boy came weeping to the village and told various persons about the Incident. A report was lodged. The courts below have believed the testimony of Ranjitsingh and have held the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable under Section 382 I. P. C.

(3.) SHRI J. M. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, contended that in view of the limited scope of interference in revision, he may not be in a position to challenge the finding on the question of fact of the accused persons removing the mare from the possession of Ranjit Singh. His argument was that his challenge to the conviction was confined to the legal aspect of the applicability of Section 382 I. P. C. to the undisputed circumstances of the present case as alleged by the prosecution itself. The contention was that according to the language of Section 382 I. P. C. as reproduced below, for securing a conviction for the offence punishable under the aforesaid section, the prosecution must establish that the accused persons committed theft after having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of their escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by theft: 382. Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to committing of the theft.-Whoever commits theft having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restraint or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the affecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. It was also contended that there was nothing on record to show that the accused persons had at any time made any preparation for causing death or hurt or restraint. The only eye-witness, i. e. , Ranjit Singh from whose possession, the mare was removed, had also not said a single word that the accused persons caused any injury, gave any threat or even made any attempt to cause hurt or restraint. Thus, the only fact established was that at the time of committing theft the accused persons were armed with weapons. Thus according to the learned Counsel it was a simple case of removal of the property from the possession of Raniit Singh by the accused persons without his consent.