STATE Vs. BUDU GOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, I would accept the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by Mr. Indramani Sahu, Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Jeypore in G.R. Case No. 451 of 1978, in which the Respondent stood charged under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code for commission of the offences of lurking house -trespass and theft of articles and cash from the dwelling house of A. Appa Rao (P.W. 3) at village Kaliaguda in the district of Koraput during the night of the 23/24th July, 1978 and dismiss the Government Appeal as the only allegation in the evidence against the Respondent that a statement of his, while in custody, handed to the recovery of a stolen article (M.O. I) belonging to P.W. 3 from his (Respondent's) manure pit had not been substantiated and even assuming that such recovery had been made, in the absence of evidence that the Respondent was the author of concealment of the article in question at the place accessible to others, he could not be deemed in law to be in exclusive or conscious possession of the stolen article on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bahadul v. State of Orissa, Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra and Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and by this Court in the case of Khagendra Gahan v. The State, to the effect that the element of criminality tending to connect the accused with the crime lies in the authorship of concealment and where the statement accompanying the discovery is woefully vague to identify the authorship of concealment, the pointing out of the object may at best prove the knowledge of the accused as to where it has been kept and it would follow that the Respondent could not be held to be guilty in respect of the offence of lurking house -trespass for which there was no evidence whatsoever or for the offence of theft.