MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Maharaj Singh against the order of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction of the applicant under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and upholding the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment passed on him by a learned Magistrate of the First Class. It appears that a burglary was committed at the house of one Vireshwarpal Singh at village Cadola on the night between 27 and 28 August 1943 and some valuable ornaments and cash to the extent of about Rs. 4000 were removed by the burglars from a locked safe inside a Kothri in the inner apartments of the house of Vireshwarpal Singh. Vireshwarpal Singh and his family lived in another house. The next morning at about 10 A. M. the burglary was discovered when Vireshwar. pal Singh went to the other house where the iron safe and other property was kept. On coming to know of the theft he immediately wrote out a first information report and sent it to the police station Hasain. A report was recorded at the police station at about 12 noon on 28 August 1943. The station officer, Har Narain Singh, happened to be at the headquarters at the time and on getting information about it he went to the than a and thence proceeded to village Cadola to hold investigation. It may be mentioned here that Vireshwarpal Singh, the complainant, expressed his suspicion against several persons including the applicant in the first information report. The station officer arrived in the village at about 4 p. M., and shortly afterwards he searched the houses of three persons, namely Budhna, Debi Singh and Maharaj Singh and made the recovery of various articles. A velvet batua, (Ex. 4), a gold bangle studded with stones (Ex. l), currency notes of the value of Rs. 200, (ex. 13) and cash (Ex. 14) amounting to Rs. 109 were recovered from the house of the applicant.

(2.) As a result of police investigation, four persons were sent up to stand their trial for an offence under Section 457, Indian Penal Code. Budhna and Debi Singh, who had apparently confessed, were convicted under,s. 457, Indian Penal Code, and each sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. Maharaj Singh, the applicant, and his brother, Bhum Jit Singh (who also stood his trial along with Maharaj Singh) were convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. Maharaj Singh was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment while Bhum Jit Singh, who was a young boy of 16 or 17 years of age, was dealt with under the First Offenders Act. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhum Jit Singh was acquitted and the conviction and sentence of Maharaj Singh were affirmed. On a consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution bad satisfactorily established that the batua (Ex. 4), gold bangle (Ex. l) and the currency notes and cash were actually recovered from the kotha of Maharaj Singh and his brother Bhum Jit Singh. The question, however, arises whether on the facts found by the learned Judge, namely that the applicant Maharaj Singh and his younger brother, Bhum Jit Singh, jointly occupied the kotha in question, the applicant can be said to have been in actual possession of the stolen property found in the kotha.

(3.) On a consideration of all the circumstances of the case and in the light of the rulings cited before him the learned Sessions Judge recorded a clear finding that it was fully established that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of Maharaj Singh who had also the guilty knowledge but the case of Bhum Jit Singh was not free from doubt. In view of this finding, as mentioned above, he allowed the appeal of Bhum Jit Singh and acquitted him.