GOPAL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision by the two petitioners is directed against their conviction and sentence as concurrently recorded in the two courts below. Both of them have been convicted under Sections 411 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955. Their sentences under Section 411, Indian Penal Code consist of two years' rigorous imprisonment each. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act.

(2.) THE case against the petitioners is that on 15.3.1965 at about 7 P.M. when the Railway Khalasi Jagdambi Mistri (P.W. 1) was passing on the way he met with Bhola Mistri and both of them started going together. When they reached near the railway line they heard both these petitioners going with bundles. A bundle in a bag which was being carried by petitioner Gopal was kept on the carrier of his cycle with which he was moving on foot. The other petitioner Asharfi had the bundle tied in loongi on his head. Because of the jingling sound produced from the bundles kept on the carrier of the cycle they got suspicious and caught hold of the accused persons with those bundles. They discovered that in those bundles they were taking away bearing plates of the railway. Thereafter P.W. 1 (Jagdambi) took both of them along with those bundles and the cycle to the Railway Public Works Inspector (P.W. 3). The latter forwarded both the accused persons along with those articles and the cycle to the Railway Police Station at Barauni along with his report. There the police registered a case against them and took up investigation which being completed, charge -sheet under Sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act was submitted.

(3.) IN the defence, they denied to have committed the offence; they claimed that they had been carrying those bundles which had been made over to them by the chaukidar of the railway stores Ram Kripal to be handed over to his brother and they had no knowledge what the bundles contained. To support this they examined two witnesses, D.Ws. 1 and 2. Both the courts below, however, disbelieved the defence so set up.