MANGU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 1 October 1926, a mare belonging to one Bhagwant Singh of mauza Patti Tek Chand disappeared and on the same night a mare belonging to one Budhu, Jat, also disappeared from an adjoining mauza, Mauza Chhajaura. Although there is no evidence that these animals were stolen, we propose for the purpose of this case to assume that they were stolen. The identity of the thief, or thieves, was not known, but one Mangu was suspected. He is the respondent to a Government appeal to-day, he having been charged, in the events which we shall set out in a few moments, with having committed an offence under Section 215, I.P.C. He was tried for that offence by a Bench of first class Magistrates of Bijnor and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction he appealed, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the 18 February 1927, allowed the jail appeal of Mangu and directed his acquittal. The Local Government, believing that acquittal to have been a miscarriage of justice, appealed and that is how the matter comes before us to-day on the Government appeal. We can dispose of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge quite shortly by saying that he disbelieved the evidence given and pointed out one or two small discrepancies. He proceeded entirely on facts, and did not believe in the good faith of the prosecution. He thought it to be a manufactured case, because the prosecution believing Mangu to have been the thief but having no evidence against him, were endeavouring to secure his conviction by means of Section 215.

(2.) We do not agree with the Sessions Judge in the way in which he approached the case, but that has become a matter of very little importance to-day, because from the early opening of this appeal the learned Government advocate was asked to consider with us the somewhat intricate nature of that section, and to point to the evidence on the record which would satisfy all the requirements for a conviction under it. We have come to the conclusion that all the requirements for a conviction under Section 215 do not exist, and that as a matter of law Mangu is entitled to be acquitted. Section 215 is one which in practice very rarely comes before the Courts, and it is desirable first that we should set out what we believe to be the facts of this case as disclosed by the evidence, and then we should discuss Section 215 and show how the prosecution must, in our opinion, have failed from the outset.

(3.) Now, undoubtedly on the discovery of the loss of these horses, Mangu was suspected. We think there can be no doubt about that, and we think that there being no evidence whatever against him, it was concluded that the best way to regain possession of the missing animals was to offer Mangu Rs. 30 if he were able to recover them. We cannot of course attach any weight to the statement that Mangu was suspected, and we have got to deal with Mangu entirely upon the evidence as it appears on the record. Now the evidence is this: Bhagwant Singh told the Court how on the night of the 1 October 1926 his mare disappeared. He said that he had a suspicion of Mangu and other persons, and he being a zamindar of some importance in the neighbourhood, told the people of his own mauza and of the mauza from which the mare of Budhu had been taken, that they should trace out the animals, and that he was quite willing to defray the expenses.