STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LAXMICHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 21.6.75, acquitted the accused respondents Laxmichand and Ramchander of the offences punishable under section 411 and 414 I. P. C. respectively.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that in the night intervening 4th and 5th of July, 1970, a theft took place on Government Museum, Jodhpur and when the museum was opened on July 5, 1970 at about 9.30 a. m., the theft came to the notice. It was seen that the theft had been committed in the room perhaps by entering through the ventilators and 10 painting which are said to be of great value, were stolen away. A report of the incident was lodged by Banshidhar PW.2 who was the storekeeper of the museum (Sardar Sangrahalaya, Jodhpur) and a case was registered. A list of stolen property (10 paintings) was also furnished. It appears that no progress in the investigation was there but all of a sudden, in the end of the month of May, the progress started and the S. H. O. received clues about the alleged theft of paintings from one Rahimuddin PW 4 who is a dealer in curios. The said Rahimuddin was instructed by the S. H. O. to be on the look out of the stolen property and informed the S. H. O. if somebody comes to him to sell the stoleu property, the photos of which were shown to Rahimuddin. A probe was made and it is alleged that both the accused respondents came to the shop of Rahimuddin on 1.6.71. It is alleged that the seven paintings considered to be stolen property, were with accused Laxmichand in a bag and Laxmichand was arrested along with the paintings which were seized under seizure memo Ex. P 6. After trial, the accused respondents were acquitted of the charges as already stated.

(3.) It need not be stated here that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, this Court is only expected to interfere in case the view on the evidence of the learned court which acquits the accused is perverse. If two views on the evidence on record are possible and the court has taken one view, which is reasonably possible then even if this Court may take some other view, it will hardly be a case for interfering with the order of acquittal. In the instant case, it may be stated that it is not the case of the prosecution that any paintings, alleged to be the stolen property were recovered from accused respondent Ramchander. Even before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case of the prosecution, straightaway and rightly so, conceded that no case is made out against Ramchander. Apart from the evidence that Laxmichand was present along accused Ramchander, Laxmichand was alleged to be with the seven paintings and the alleged stolen property was recovered from the possession of Laxmichand. There is absolutely no evidence to connect Ramchander with the commission of the offence. So far as the case against accused Laxmichand is concerned, it can be stated at the very outset that apart from the alleged recovery of seven paintings from the possession of the accused, the recovery which has not been relied upon by the learned trial court there is no other evidence on record against him. A look at Ex. P6 would show that the recovery is said to have taken place in the presence of Mohansingh and Rahimuddin. Out of of them, Rahimuddin has been examined as PW 4. He does not state that paintings were recovered from the possession of accused Laxmichand and he has stated that he does not remember as to from the possession of which of the two persons who had come to the shop, the paintings were recovered. Surprisingly, he was not cross-examined. The other witnesses Mohansingh has been examined. There remains the solitary statement of Investigating Officer Om Prakash PW 7 Rahimuddin states that the trap was laid at the shop where as Omprakash states that the accused Laxmichand was apprehended at some other place. Taking into consideration the inconsistency in the statements about the place from where the stolen property is said to have been recovered from accused Laxmichand, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused of the charge against him. The view of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the evidence on record, can hardly be said to be perverse.