DHOI ALIAS BASUDEV DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Sections 454 and 380 , Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for six months on each count and also to pay fine of Rs 25/ - in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days under each count, the substantive sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case is that on 30th January, 1963 the Petitioner committed lurking house trespass in the dwelling house of the complainant between 3, to 4 p.m. and committed theft of J, trunk containing cash, some silver ornaments, one gold ornament, some clothings and some documents. Petitioner and the informant are agnates. While the informant was absent from his house, the Petitioner requested his wife Sita Dei, p.w.4 to go to his house to grind Borne kolthi. Sita Dei (p. wA) locked her house and went to the house of the accused leaving behind her two children. The accused committed theft while she was absent from her house. The accused stated to the police that he had concealed the ornaments in the bari and then gave recovery of the ornaments to the police by pointing out the places of concealment. The defence is one of denial. Both the Courts concurrently found that the Petitioner was guilty.

(2.) MR . Misra advanced two contentions -(1) there was no evidence that the accused committed any offence under Section 454, Indian Penal Code and (2) the Petitioner being under 21 years of age is entitled to the protection of Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act XX of 1958) hereinafter to the referred to age the Act.

(3.) THE next question for consideration is whether any offence was committed under Section 451, Indian Penal Code. Section 451 runs thus: