SANGRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals -one filed by Sangram Singh and another preferred by Madan Singh son of Ugam Singh and Laxmi Narain alias Laxman arise out of a common judgment passed by the learned Sessions judge, Jaipur City, on 19th February, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 24 of 1971 convicting and sentencing each of the three appellants in the following manner: 1. Sangram Singh

(2.) MADAN Singh

(3.) A good number of paintings, which were recovered by the CBI during the course of investigation, were put up for identification in test identification parades held by Shri Bal Krishna Sharma PW 42 City Magistrate, Jaipur, on 8 -5 -1969 and 9 -5 -1969 as is evident from the identification memos Exs. P. 47 to 54. Out of the paintings sought to be identified some were correctly identified by Ram Gopal, Kirpal Singh and Yadvendra Sahai identifying witnesses to be paintings of Maharaja of Jaipur, which were stolen from almirah No. 76. Likewise other paintings recovered by the C.B.I. were put up in test identification parades held by Shri N.L. Kakkar, P.W. 41, the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Delhi, dated on 29 -8 -1969, 5 -12 -1969, 16 -12 -1969, 22 -1 -1970, 23 -1 -1970, 9 -2 -1970, 10 -2 -1970, 11 -2 -1970 7 -4 -1970 and 8 -4 -1970 as is evident from identification memos Ex. P. 55 to P. 60 and P. 71 to 75. Out of the paintings sought to be identified, a number of them were correctly identified by each of the three identifying witnesses, namely Ram Gopal, Kirpal Singh and Yadvendra Sahai to be stolen paintings of Maharaja of Jaipur. On 12 -5 -1969 the investigating agency got Madan Singh son of Gulab Singh co -accused (who has been convicted by the trial Judge and released on probation) identified by D.P. Peter, Mr. A.Z. Leneman and Mrs. Leneman as is evident from the identification memos Exs. P 226, P 227 and P 228. The CBI took chits marked Ex. P 5 to P 25 into its possession. These chits were alleged to have been removed by the thieves themselves from the stolen albums at the time of commission of the offence. They were seen lying in the room outside almirah No. 76 by Ram Gopal on 11.1.1969. Some registers Ex. P 38, P 39, P 40, P 41, P 42, P 44 and Toziz Arts 233 to 235 were also taken into possession by the CBI, because they contained descriptions of paintings which were kept in and stolen from almirah No. 76. After collecting other necessary evidence, the CBI filed a charge -sheet against Sangram Singh, Madan Singh, Laxmi Narain, Bhanwar Singh, Madan Singh son of Gulab Singh, and Ayodhya Singh in the court of the Special Magistrate First Class, Jaipur, under Sections 457, 380, 411 and 414 read with Section 120B and 109, I.P.C. In the course of committal proceedings, Ayodhya Singh turned an approver The learned Magistrate held an inquiry, preparatory to commitment, and upon finding a prima facie case, under Section 120B read with Section 109 read with Sections 457, 380, 411 and 414, I.P.C. committed all the accused except Ayodhya Singh to whom pardon was tendered, for trial in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, tried all the accused for the offences with which they were charged and relying upon the testimony of Ajodhya Singh approver and the evidence of recoveries of stolen paintings convicted the appellants in the manner indicated above. He, however, acquitted Madan Singh son of Gulab Singh of all the charges, because, in his opinion, the prosecution could not make out a case against him beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.