DHARAM SINGH MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Yaswant Kumar Jain, Magistrate 1st Class, Batala, vide his order dated the 29th December, 1959, convicted the petitioner under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment, Surjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner, who was also tried along with the petitioner, was, however, acquitted. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, though maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year's rigorous imprisonment, vide his order dated the 29th January 1960. The petitioner still feels dissatisfied and has approached this Court in revision.

(2.) THE story for the prosecution briefly runs as under. On the night between 21st and 22nd May, 1958 a theft in the house jointly occupied by Manmohan Kaur (P. W. 1) and Satvant Kaur (P. W. 16) was committed and a number of articles were stolen. A report of that theft was made on the next morning at 8. 30 a. m. Another theft in the house of Ishar Singh (P. W. 10) took place on the night between 18th and 19th June, 1958 in which also a number of articles were stolen. Report of this theft was also lodged. Again on the 12th May a theft in the house of Gian Singh (P. W. 19) was committed and a number of articles were stolen therefrom. Before that on the night between 23rd and 24th September 1957 a theft took place in the house of Fauja Singh (P. W. 11) wherefrom certain articles were removed. A report was duly lodged at the police station. Still another theft took place in the house of Mayya Singh (P. W. 5) and some clothes were stolen. The details of the stolen articles in all the thefts are given in the judgment of the Court below.

(3.) ON the 25th June 1958 on receipt of information Mann Singh A. S. I. went to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner was not present, but his wife was there. She produced the key of a box lying in the house. The box was opened in the presence of Buta Singh, Iqbal Singh and Ghasita Singh P. Ws. , and a number of articles were recovered from it. These were later on identified by the various P. Ws. as the stolen property. As a result of the above recovery, case against the petitioner and his wife was registered, and after due investigation they were sent up for trial with the result mentioned above.