Sheo Nath v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court15 Oct 19691969 INSC 285 · [1970] 2 S.C.R. 7961969 INSC 285

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Presumption under s. 114 illustration (a) Evidence Act; recent and unexplained possession of stolen property; recovery of stolen cloth three days after dacoity; distinction between ss. 396, 411 and 412 IPC; guilty receiver versus participant in dacoity; cloth merchant; dacoity at Dhaneja village on August 19, 1966; conviction under s. 396 IPC altered to s. 411 IPC with rigorous imprisonment three years; Wasim Khan distinguished; Sanwal Khan relied on; Bhurgiri (Rajasthan High Court, Wanchoo C.J.) relied on.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction altered from s. 396 IPC to s. 411 IPC, with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years. ¶¶71

Sheo Nath versus the State of Uttar Pradesh — Supreme Court (1970) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; conviction altered from s. 396 IPC to s. 411 IPC, with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years.

¶¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, Sheo Nath, should be convicted under s. 396, s. 411 or s. 412 of the Indian Penal Code on the facts found, i.e. the recovery of cloth stolen in a dacoity from his possession three days after the occurrence. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

On the facts of this case the only legitimate presumption to be drawn is that the appellant knew the goods were stolen but did not know that they were stolen in a dacoity; the appellant can only be convicted under s. 411 IPC.

¶¶59

Ratio / Principle

The choice among the three possible presumptions depends on the facts proved; the appellant is a cloth merchant and may well have acquired the goods as a receiver, and it has not been shown that in the village where he lived it was known that a dacoity had taken place and goods had been stolen in it.

¶¶57

Key takeaways

Not all the property stolen by the dacoits was recovered from the appellant; the only articles found with him were a length of muslin (Exh. 2) and a length of charkhana doriya (Exh. 3).ratio¶¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sheo Nath v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1969, decided October 15, 1969; judgment delivered by Sikri J. on behalf of the Court comprising S. M. Sikri and P. Jaganmohan Reddy JJ.). The appellant, a cloth merchant who had not been named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pancham, was convicted by the Allahabad High Court under s. 396 IPC solely because three lengths of cloth stolen in the dacoity at Ram Murat's shop in Dhaneja village (August 19, 1966) were recovered from his home on August 22, 1966 and identified. Held: three presumptions are possible from such recovery under illustration (a) to s. 114, Evidence Act — participation in the dacoity, receiving the goods knowing they were stolen in a dacoity, or receiving them knowing them to be stolen — and the choice depends on the facts proved. Since not all the stolen property was recovered from the appellant (only muslin and charkhana doriya), he may well have acquired the goods as a receiver, and it was not shown that the dacoity was known in his village, the only legitimate presumption is that he knew the goods were stolen but not that they were stolen in a dacoity. Conviction altered to one under s. 411 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for three years. Wasim Khan v. State of U.P. [1956] SCR 191 distinguished; Sanwal Khan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54 relied on; Bhurgiri v. The State ILR [1954] Raj 476 referred to and relied upon.

796

SHEO NATH

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶6

October 15, 1969

¶7

(S. M. SIKRI AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]

¶8

Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)-Section 114 illustration (a)-Recovery froni nppe/lant's shop of cloth stolen in dacoity-Conviction under- s. 396¹ .P.C. solely based on discovery of cloth and their identification-J11fere11ces 10 be dran·11 under s. 114. Evidence Act. 1-he house of the appellant, a cloth merchant, was searched and three Jengths of cloth ""·ere recovered which were subsequently identified as having been s.tolcn from a shop in a dacoity in Vii'hich clothes, ornaments, ca:;h etc. were stolen. The appellant was not named by the eye.witnesses cir in the dying declaration as having taken part in the dacoity. Relying on the d!scovery o"f the cloth and their identification the High Court convicted hiril under s. 395 Penal c·ode. The Court observed that it was legitimate to infer that he was one of the dacoits in view of illust.r:ation (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In the appeal to this Court it was contended that the High Court should have convicted the appellant only under section 411 Penal Code. Allowing the appeal, HELD : On the facts the only legitimate presumption to be drawn is that the appellant knew that the ~oops were stolen but .he did not know that they were stolen in a dacoity. All the property which was stolen hy the dacoits was no! recovered from the appellant. The appellant, a cloth merchant, may well have acquired these goods as a receiver. It has not been shown that in the village in which the appellant lived it was known thet a dacoity had taken place and goods had been ste>len in the dace>ity. [799 B-CJ IVa.<im Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 191 distinguished; s,u1wa/ Khan v. State of Rajn<tlwn, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 54, re'ferred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No. 49cf1969. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 2, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 1968.

R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.

¶15

0. P. Rana, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J, The only question which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant, Sheo Nath, should be convicted under s. 396, I.P.C., ors. 41 I, l.P.C., ors. 412, 1.P.C. The facts as found by the High Court are these. A dacoity was committed at the shop of Ram Murat in Dhaneja village by 15 to 20 persons on August 19, 1966, at about 11.30 p.m. One dacoit, Ram Shankar, was armed with a gun while others carried

¶16

¶17

¶18

SHEO NATH V. U.P. STATE (Sikri, J.)

¶19

797

¶20

A spcars, Gandasas and lathis. During the course of the dacoity Ram Murat was injured. One Pancham, who lived in a house not for from Ram Murat's shop, and two others came running on hearing the noise. Pancham was shot down with the gun by dacoit Ram Sbankar. The dacoits then escaped with clothes, ornaments, cash, etc., looted from Ram Murat's shop. After the

¶21

B dacoits left Ram Murat dictated a report about the occurrence in which he named Ram Shankar Singh, Jaintri Prasad Singh, Nanhe Singh and Sulai accused as having been among the culprits and this report was sent to the Jalalpur police station, five miles away,. where it was received and recorded at 6 a.111. next morning. On August 22, 1966, i.e., three days after the dacoity, the

¶22

c home of Sheo Nath, appellant, was searched and three lengths of cloth were recovered which were subsequently identified by Ram Murnt and a tailor named Bismillah as having been stolen from Ram Murat"s shop in the dacoity.

¶23

The High Court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge,.

¶24

relied on the cvir:Ience of three eye-witnesses regarding the manner

¶25

D in which th occurrence took place and regarding ;he participa-· . ticn of the four named accused persons. Shea Nath had not been named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pancham and no witness claimed to have identified him taking part in the dacoity. But, relying on the discovery of three lengths of cloth and their identification, the High Court convicied Sheo Nati,

¶26

E under s. 396, 1.P.C. The High Court observed : · .. : "From the material on record we are fully con-

¶27

vinced that the Exhs. 2 and 3 were st6kn from the shop of Rairi Murat in the course of the dacoity committed in the night between 19 to 20 August 1966, and since they were recovered from the possession of Sheonath

¶28

F appellant only 2 or 3 days later, it is legitimatie to infer that he was one of the dacoits vide illustration (a) to '· section 114 of the Evidence Act. Sheo Nath, therefore, has been rightly convicted under section 396, I.P.C."'

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant co~tends that in the

¶30

circumstances of the case the High Court should not have convicted the appellant under s. 396, I.P.C:, but only under s. 411, !t~~~t'.on 114 of the Evidence Act and illustration (a) re1d ·" "114. The Court may presume the existence of

¶31

any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the cmmnon course of natural events,

¶32

H human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. illustrations.

¶33

(1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶34

798

¶35

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶36

¶37

The Court may presume-

¶38

( a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession."

¶39

This Section was considered by this Court in Sanwal Khan v. State of Rajasthan (¹ ). This Court, after considering some High Court cases, observed :

¶40

"In our judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof."

¶41

In Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) this Court held that "recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while it would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the charge of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge of murder." On the facts of that case this Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted of the offence of murder and robbery. But, apart from the possession of stolen property, there were other circumstances indicating that the appellant was guilty of murder and robbery. The circumstances were that the appellant in that case had travelied with the deceased on his bullock cart alone and the deceased never reached his home and was found murdered. The. appellant was found in possession of the goods of the deceased three days after and the appellant made no effort to trace the whereabouts of the deceased or lodge information of his disappearance from the bullock cart.

¶42

In the present case three presumptions are possible from the recovery of the stolen goods from the appellant three days after the occurrence of the dacoity :

( 1) that the appellant took part in the dacoity;

¶50

( 2) that he received stolen goods knowing that the goods were stolen in the commission of a dacoity; and

¶51

( 3) that the appellant received these goods knowing them to have been stolen.

¶52

¶53

(1) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 54. (2) [1956] S.C.R. 191.

¶54

SHEO NATH V. U.P. STATE (Sikri, J.)

¶55

799

¶56

A The choice to be made, however, must depend on the facts proved in this case. It is quite clear that all the property which was stplen by the dacoits was not recovered from the appellant. We may repeat that clothes, ornaments, cash, etc. were stolen. The only articles that were found with the appellant were a length o.1 muslin (Exh. 2) and a length of charkhana doriya (Exh. 3). The

¶57

B appellant is stated to be a cloth merchant and he may well have acquired these goods as a receiver. It has not been shown that in the village in which the appellant lived it was known that a dacoity had taken place and goods had been stolen in the dacoity.

¶58

On the facts of this case it seems to us that the only legitimate

¶59

c presumption to be drawn is that the appellant knew that the goods were stolen but he did not know that they were stolen in a dacoity. The appellant, therefore, can only be convicted under s. 411, I.P.C.

¶60

In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Rajas-

¶61

than High Court in Bhurgiri v. The State(') (Wanchoo, C.J.,

¶62

D and Dave, J.). Wanchoo, C.J., after holding that the recovery of ornaments from Bhurgiri had been established, observed :

¶63

••

¶64

"The next question is whether on this evidence Bhurgiri cal)c be convicted for dacoity. The recovery E took place five days after the dacoity. It is not impossible that during that period the property might have passed from the dacoits to a receiver. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that it would not be safe •• to coavict Bhurgiri of dacoity on the evidence of t?s recovery alone. It would be more proper to convict F him as a guilty receiver.

¶65

¶66

Then the question arises whether he should be con-. victed under section 411 or 412, I.P.C. So far as section 411 is· concerned, he is clearly guilty under that section. The presumption under section 114 applies, G and we can safely presume that he is a guilty receiver of . stolen property particularly when we rmd that the property was kept in the Bara, and not at his own house. He must have had reason to believe that it was stoler: when he received the property, and that is why he left it in the Bara. But ·we feel that it would not be proper H to convict him under section 412 because that section requires that the receiver should know or have reaso, .

¶67

(I) I.LR. [1954] Raj. 476, 482-83.

¶68

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 2 S.C.R.

¶69

800

¶70

. A

¶71

to believe that the property had been \ransferred by the commission of dacoity. The prosecution, in our ,opinion,hastoshowsomethingmorethan the mere possession of stolengoodsfor a conviction undersec- tion 412.Ifthe prosecutionisonly abletoshowmere possession, the proper sectiontouseis411." In the result the appealisallowed and the appellant convicted unders.411, I.P.C., instead ofs.396, I.P.C., and sentencedto :undergorigorous imprisonmentforthreeyears.	B
R.K.P.S. Appealallowed.	c

to believe that the property had been \ransferred by the
commission of dacoity.
The prosecution,
in our
,opinion,hastoshowsomethingmorethan the mere
possession of stolengoodsfor a conviction undersec-
tion 412.Ifthe prosecutionisonly abletoshowmere
possession, the proper sectiontouseis411."
In the result the appealisallowed and the appellant convicted
unders.411, I.P.C., instead ofs.396, I.P.C., and sentencedto
:undergorigorous imprisonmentforthreeyears.

R.K.P.S.
Appealallowed.

Sheo Nath v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheo Nath v. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lennart Schussler and Anr. versus Director of Enforcement & Anr.

Shivagonda Subraigonda Patil and Ors. versus Rudragonda Bhimagonda Patil and Anr.

Kantilal Chandulal Mehta versus State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hari Sao and Anr. versus State of Bihar

Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. versus State of Haryana and Ors.

Lala Ram versus Hari Ram