SHIVDAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454, Indian Penal Cede, on the allegation that he committed house trespass by breaking the lock of house of Girraj (P.W 2) and committed theft of a 'Borla' and some articles worth about Rs. 250/ - on December 7, 1970.

(2.) THE prosecution, in support of its case, relied on circumstantial evidence. The courts below accepted the recovery evidence and on that basis convicted the accused under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -.

(3.) APART from this, the theft, according to the prosecution, was committed on December 7, 1970 and the complaint was lodged on December 14, 1970. Some explanation has been given by Smt. Anguri, wife of P.W.2 Girraj stating that her husband had gone to attend some marriage, and therefore, after the return of her husband a complaint was lodged. The evidence in this case is that Girraj (P.W. 2) returned to the village on December 11, 1970, but even then the complaint was lodged on December 14, 1970 This also cannot be true because the first information report reached the court on December 23, 1970. There is no satisfactory explanation why the first information report reached the court so late, It appears to me that the comlpaint in this case must have been lodged long after the alleged recovery, obviously, to implicate the accused in a false case as there was enmity between the accused and Girraj (P.W. 2). The courts below totally misread the evidence, with the result that they have reached a wrong conclusion.