NIRANJAN ALIAS NIRANJAN AGARWALLA Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Sambalpur, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner under Section 457 I.P.C. and reducing the sentence passed on him by the First Class Magistrate of Bargarh to one days rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ - (Rupees five hundred).

(2.) AT the time of the admission of this revision -petition notice was issued on the Petitioner to show cause why the sentence may not be enhanced and he was given an opportunity to show cause against his conviction also.

(3.) IN my opinion, the facts proved will not suffice to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner entered the house of Madan Mohan for the purpose of committing theft. The Petitioner appears to be a fairly respectable Marwari of the place. It appears from the evidence of one of the Pujaris of the temple living nearby that the Petitioner gave him money for the purpose of taking flowers from the Temple. The Petitioner is not therefore a needy beggar, who was driven to the necessity of committing theft inside the dwelling house of another person in the locality where he was living. There is also some evidence to show that the Petitioner was known to the family of Madan Mohan, and no attempt was made to remove any article from the house of as to justify the inference that the entry into the house was made for the purpose of committing theft. Doubtless, Madan Mohan has stated in his deposition that his daughter awoke on hearing a noise caused by the attempt to open one of the boxes in her bedroom. But no mark of violence was found on any of the boxes subsequently. Moreover, the injuries found on the girl Sarada render the story of theft highly improbable. If the culprit had really intended to commit theft it is unlikely that they would have caused scratch marks on her arm and thigh. Considering the status of the Petitioner, the absence of any stolen property in his possession, the injuries on Sarada and the fact that Madan Mohans family was not unknown to the Petitioner from before I would, in disagreement with the two lower courts, hold that even if the entry of the Petitioner into the dwelling house of Madan Mohan was established, it was not further established that it was for the purpose of committing theft. The charge under Section 457 I.P.C. must therefore fail.