EMPEROR Vs. VALLABHRAM GANPATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [ His lordship after setting out the facts proceeded. ] On these facts, the charge Ex. 1 was framed. The Sessions Judge agreeing with two out of the three assessors held that accused No. 1 had removed the tumar from Jeyshankar's house, with the intention of helping accused Nos. 2 find 3 to utilise it for their own benefit by removing certain papers and altering some others, He, therefore, convicted accused No. 1 of an offence under a, 381, Indian Penal Code. He convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 881 read with Section 109; and also under SB. 466 and 193 read with Section 84 in respect of the two multilated documents Exs. 8 and 14, Punishments were awarded as stated in the judgment.

(2.) On July 24, 1920, accused Vallabhram made a confession (Ex. 83) before the First Class Magistrate at Bulsar. He retracted it in the Court of the committing Magistrate and maintained that attitude in the Sessions Court. Before us, however, his counsel has relied on the facts set out in that statement. The learned Advocate General, thereupon, revived his claim to rely upon it as against all the appellants. I however prefer not to take it into consideration as against accused Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) On behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 3 it is contended that the tumar was not removed by them in conspiracy with accused No. 1 from Jeyshankar's house to their own vakil Govindji's house in Bulsar, as alleged, and that the story of the prosecution is entirely false. The defence led no evidence; and the voluminous evidence adduced by the prosecution was very fully and carefully discussed before us by learned counsel on both sides; it leaves no doubt as to the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Judge that all the three accused persons were guilty of the offence of theft. On the morning of the 6th, accused Nos. 2 and 3 arrived in Pardi and met accused No. 1 (Exs. 84 and 57). At about noon, accused No. 1 obtained from Premshankar (Ex. 65) the key of Jeyshankar's house; he opened it and removed the tumar. Accused Nos. 2 and 8 engaged a tonga of Mithal Ramji (Ex, 51), and they all went to the house of the vakil, Govindji Vasanji (Ex. 24) at Bulsar, The tumar was shown to him. They returned to Pardi at about 9-80 at night and stayed in the house of accused No. I till about, 11 p.m. The evidence is discussed at length in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment of the trial Judge, who says:- From what has been stated above there is no doubt to my mind and the assessors are of the same opinion that in the morning of the 6 May, Vallabhram removed the file from the house of Joyshankar and that all the three accused Handled it before they took it to Bulsar on the evening of that day-All the three accused wore in possession of the file till it was brought back from the pleader's house at Bulsur to Pardi on the night of 6 May. On the next day, i.e., 7 May Vallabhrum was admittedly in charge of the file because he prepared a copy of the Collector's order therefrom and handed it over to the third accused pranshankar (Ex. 35) and Lalbhai (Ex.59) have stated that the three accused were seen closeted in the house of the first accused inspecting some pipers on the 7 May. This evidence seems to be correct and practically speaking Vullabhram retained charge of the file till it was return, ed to Jeyshankar on the morning of the 8 in a mutilated condition.