BIRENDRA CHANDRA DE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals one being Criminal Appeal No. 8/55 filed on behalf of Birendra Chandra De and the other Criminal Appeal No. 12/55 filed on behalf of Sultan Khan and Khalil Mea. All these three accused appellants were tried jointly with some other accused persons by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Tezpur of various charges, with the help of a jury and the verdict of the jury was unanimous. The Judge accepted the verdict and agreeing with the same found Birendra Chandra De guilty under Sections 457 and 380. Indian Penal Code. Sultan Khan was also found guilty of the two charges under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the night of 14th December 1951, there was a theft of Rs. 51,527/ - in currency notes belonging to the Sootea Sub -Post -Office from the iron safe that was imbedded on the floor of the office room of the Sootea Thana. The practice was for the Post Master of the Sootea Sub -Post -Office to keep all the days' collection and remittances in the safe after the close of the days' work. The Post Master and a postal clerk used to go to the thana at the close of the working day and put the postal money in the iron safe, to which two different locks were attached. Both the Post Master and the clerk had to go to open or lock the box as they both carried separately some keys by combination of which alone the opening or locking up of the iron safe was possible.

(3.) ALL the three accused persons pleaded not guilty. Accused Siren's case inter alia was that he was implicated only out of some grudge or malice and he had as a matter of fact taken no part in. the theft as alleged. Sultan Khan also pleaded not guilty and he denied that he pointed out the incriminating articles to the investigating officer on 20th and 21st February, 1952 and that they were seized at his instance. Accused Khalil made a confession which he subsequently retracted and his case at the trial stage was that he did not know of the stolen articles being hidden at his place, alternatively that he was not the man from whose house the jar with the incriminating articles were seized.