Summary
On 4-3-1968, the date of the accident. Karnal Singh, the accused was driving the truck No. MRS 7372. purchased out of the loan advanced by the ex-serviceman Co-operative Society to one Sutar who entrusted the vehicle to Balwant Singh, the brother of the appellant, a co-accused, under a contract for hire against a monthly payment of Rs. 2000- 2200, after incurring all expenses over the truck. The payment was regular up to December, 1967, and, thereafter, Balwant Singh avoided Sutar. Though Balwant Singh met Sutar on 9-3 1968 and 12-3-1968 ie. after the date of accident and promised to meet him later, The actually absconded resulting in the lodging of a First Information Report by Sutar on 20- 4-1968 at 12.30 p.m. against Balwant Singh Uttam Singh for taking appropriate action under s. 408, I.P.C.
Since Balwant Singh was absconding and the vehicle was found in the possession of Karnal Singh, the police apprehended him and filed the charge sheet. The Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay, charged the appellant under s. 408 read with s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, but, actually convicted him and sentenced him to six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- under s. 411 Indian Penal Code without appreciating the effect of either the value of Exhibit Dl dated 12-3-1968 written by Sutar indicating that he was agreeable to pay the total costs of the repair of the damaged vehicle, with the admission of its execution by Sutar in cross-examination and failure to explain these or of the explanation given by the accused in his 342 statement to how he came into possession of the lorry for repairing it.The High Court mainfained the conviction and the sentence. Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, F^HELD. (1) the presumption from recent possession of stolen property is an optional Prescription of fact under s.114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is open to the Court to convict the appellant by using the presumption when the circumstances indicate that no other reasonable hypothesis except the guilty knowledge of the appellant is open to the prosecution. [751-D](2) In the instant case, there was no mention of the appellant's name in the F.I.R. there was no change under s 411, I.P.C. against him and he was not asked to explain it possession of the truck, but still he did explain it. The appellant's answer to the omnibus question under s. 342, Criminal Procedure Code, without giving him an intimation of the offence of which he was likely to be convicted, on the face of it, was quite reasonable and credible. The prosecution had been unable to repel the effect of this fairly acceptable explanation. The explanation which the appellant had given was good enough to raise serious doubts about the susceptibility of a charge under s. 411, Indian Penal Code. The principle of benefit of doubt on questions of fact applies whether the verdict is of a Jury or the finding is to be given by a Judge or a Magistrate.[751,AB.EH]Otto George Gfeller v. The king, AIR 1943 PC 211 @ 214See the full content of this document
Extract
Karnal Singh Uttam Singh VS. State Of Maharashtra
PETITIONER: KARNAL SINGH UTTAM SINGH Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRADATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1975BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAHBENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAHGOSWAMI, P.K.CITATION: 1976 AIR 1097 1976 SCR (3) 747 1976 SCC (1) 882ACT: Indian Evidence Act Section 114-Presumption from recent possession of stolen property - Nature of.Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 section 342-When explanation given by the accused under s. 342 is quite reasonable and credible and supported by other evidence in defence, Conviction and sentence under s. 411 of the lndian Penal Code is not sustainable.JUDGMENT: 748&CRIMI...
See the full content of this document