STATE Vs. INDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Indraj by a Magistrate of the First Class of an offence under Section 454 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case was briefly this. Shivkaran and his family lived in Nangal bari. He and members of his family had gone out to their fields on the morning of 29-9-1952 and had shut up the house. When they returned in the evening, they found, that the floor of the house was open and that the lock of an almirah inside the house had been broken. The almirah contained Rs. 350/- in currency notes and a tin-box containing gold and silver ornaments. The money as well as the box of ornaments were found missing. It was also stated in the first report that the house of the accused Indraj was next door and that the accused knew that the money and ornaments were in that almirah. Suspicion was expressed against indraj on the further ground that he was a gambler. It was also explained that there was delay in the report as they were trying all along to find out about the theft.

(3.) THE report of the incident was made in the Thana on 3-10-1952. The police arrived on the scene on the 4th Oct. and it is said that a list of stolen property was prepared on that day. The list is Ex. P. 5. This list was prepared as there was not a complete list of the stolen property in the first report where only a few ornaments were mentioned and it was stated that the details would be given by Shivkaran and his wife. The case for the prosecution further is that on 6-10-1952, the accused told the police that the stolen property would be found buried at a certain place. Thereafter the accused took the police to the Bara of one Shivram and the property was recovered from that Bara. It is not in dispute that the Bara is practically an open place accessible to all and sundry. The accused was prosecuted under Sections 454 and 380 of the I. P. C. by the police after this recovery. The magistrate framed a charge under Section 454 of the I. P. C. but came to the conclusion that the offence had not been proved as the prosecution had failed to prove that the articles belonged to Shiv Karan and his daughter.