CHUNIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused Chunia who has been convicted under sec. 411 I. P. C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 700/- by the two courts below. It has been further ordered that a sum of Rs. 500/- out of the fine, if recovered be given to the complainant Arjunsingh.

(2.) THE material facts are these. On the night between the 11th and 12th February, 1954, a theft was committed in the house of the complainant Arjunsingh at Nimbaheda in a room on the first floor. It is said that a relation of Arjun Singh, namely, Nathusingh and another person Babulal were also sleeping in the said room. At about 2-30 a. m. Nathusingh heard some noise and called Arjunsingh. Arjun Singh immediately came and found that the door of the room had been opened and that one of his boxes containing gold and silver ornaments and clothes was missing. He immediately raised an alarm and some sort of a search was made for the thief but without success. Arjunsingh lodged the first report at Thana Nimbaheda at 4 a. m. Naturally the names of the thief's were not mentioned in the report. Arjun Singh said in the first report that ha would soon file a list of the stolen property and this list Ex. P-G was put in apparently on the morning of the 12th February, 1951. It appears that one Narain who was one of the two accused in this case and was eventually acquitted was interrogated by the police some time after the theft in question took place and the prosecution case was that a box containing a good deal of the stolen property belonging to Arjun Singh was recovered at the instance of Narain from a well on the 16th June, 1951. As a result of further investigation on the 19th June, 1951 the present petitioner Chunia produced a pair of silver ornaments called lungars from his own house. It may be mentioned at once that the case of Chunia is that this pair was his own and belonged to his wife. On the 17th June, 1951, certain other articles out of the alleged stolen property of Arjun Singh were recovered from Amritram Jat. This recovery is said to have been made at the instance of the accused Narain. On the 2/th June, 1951, a gold bor was produced by Bherunlal, and Bherunlal's version was that the said bor had been pledged with him by the petitioner Chunia in the preceding winter as a security for a loan which he had earlier advanced to Chunia. It further appears that an identification of the stolen property was held before a Magistrate at which Arjun Singh identified the lungars and the bor and certain other articles to be his. THE police eventually challaned Narain and Chunia and one other person Harji under sec. 457 and 380, I. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nimbaheda. THE learned Magistrate discharged Harji and acquitted Narain by giving him the benefit of doubt and convicted the present petitioner Chunia under sec. 411 I. P. C. and sentenced him as already stated above. THEreafter the accus-went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who upheld his code viction and sentence. Hence this revision.