MANGALYA RAGHO MAHAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHEDAR , A.J.C. 1. In connexion with the housebreaking at the house of Ramlal (P.W.7) the applicant and two others were convicted by Mr. Kamath, Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hinganghat, of an offence under Section 457, I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal two out of the three accused were acquitted although the evidence against them was prima facie more incriminating then that against the applicant whose conviction was maintained. The case against the applicant has been stated by the learned Sessions Judge, in paras. 3 and 4 of his judgment the material portions of which are as under: The S.I. (P.W. 1) states that Manglia, appellant, took him to a well out of which an iron box was taken out on his information. The box with the articles therein has been identified as belonging to Ramlal and Parvati * * * * Reliance is placed by Manglia's learned counsel on the ruling in Public Prosecutor v. Pakkiriswami, AIR 1929 Mad 846, and to the cases which are referred to therein, but these cases are easily distinguishable, because therein the only incriminating circumstance against the accused was that his information led to the discovery of stolen property from places not belonging to him and easily accessible to any person. In the present case this appellant is a previous convict and previous to the occurrence his movements were suspicious. Manglia could not be aware of the existence of the stolen property in the well unless he himself threw it or saw another person doing so. It is not his case that it was the latter. I accordingly uphold his conviction and also the sentence which is by no means severe.

(2.) THE present case is hardly distinguishable from the Madras case cited by the learned Sessions Judge. The well from which the stolen box was recovered admittedly belonged to accused 1, Bhagwan, and not to the applicant. The cases of Queen-Empress v. Gobinda (1895) 17 All 576 and Sohan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah 91, also lay down the same principle viz. that when the only incriminating circumstance against an accused is that his information led to the discovery of stolen property from places not belonging to him, he could not be convicted either of being a thief or a receiver of stolen property. Although the applicant had a previous conviction, as far back as 1905 it was certainly no ground to base his present conviction on. The fact that he had gone to the house of Ramlal on Sunday previous to the house breaking "to sell mangoes" in his professional rounds is not at all a suspicious circumstance to warrant bis conviction. There being no other evidence against him he is entitled to acquittal. I accordingly set aside his conviction and direct him to be set at liberty.