Karni Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Karni Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 11, 1999

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/763916

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/763916
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: G.L. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Jan 11, 1999
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 654 of 1998
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Sections 166, 288, 323, 337, 342, 357, 394, 440, 454, 147, 148, 149, and Criminal Procedure Code--Sections 197 and 202--Cognizance of offence--Saisfaction of Court is necessary that there is prima-facie case--Evidence not to be examined meticulously--Available defences can be raised at appropriate stage...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Arms Act - Sections 25(3); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 380, 411 and 454; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Karni Singh

Advocate M.L. Garg, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate V.R. Mehta, P.P.

Legal References

Acts: Arms Act - Sections 25(3); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 380, 411 and 454; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313
Reported In: 1999CriLJ1791; 1999WLC(Raj)UC315; 1990WLN(UC)244

Excerpt

penal code - sections 166, 288, 323, 337, 342, 357, 394, 440, 454, 147, 148, 149, and criminal procedure code--sections 197 and 202--cognizance of offence--saisfaction of court is necessary that there is prima-facie case--evidence not to be examined meticulously--available defences can be raised at appropriate stage.;at the time of taking the cognizance, the court, after application of the mind to the evidence of the witnesses and the documents on record as also to the suspected conditions of the offence, has to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made out to proceed-with against the persons accused. at this stage, the evidence is not required to be meticulously examined as required to be examined at the final stage and if there is prima facie evidence to proceed-with, then the court can take the cognizance and proceed-with the matter. if the accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken, has any valid defence available to him, then that can be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. as the order, taking cognizance, is an ex-parte order, passed by the learned magistrate, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the accused, therefore, if the accused have any grievance against the order passed by the judicial magistrate, they can appear before the learned magistrate and raise all objections which they want to raise and it is expected that the learned magistrate will consider all these objections raised by the petitioners.;revision dismissed. - - since both the presumptions are possible as per illustration (a) of section 114 of the evidence act, it is safe to raise the second presumption in the absence of any other evidence against the accused......hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned magistrate found the charges under sections 454 and 380, i.p.c. proved against both the accused. he, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. accused rajesh was also convicted under section 25(3) of the arms act. the appeal preferred by kami .singh proved abortive.3. mr. garg contended that there is no evidence on record showing that the petitioner had entered into the house of arun kumar. as the recovery had taken place three months after the occurrence, he contended, the petitioner could be convicted under section 411, i.p.c. only. he, however, did not challenge the finding of the trial court that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner.4. on the other hand, mr. mehta contended that the recovery of the stolen property was made within three months and, therefore, the presumption arises that the accused himself had committed the theft and he has been rightly convicted.5. i have carefully considered the above arguments. p. w. 4 surnan ali deposes that after the arrest of the petitioner he gave information ex. p-7, and on the basis of this information he went to the house of the accused from where he took out currency notes, bracelet - made of gold, and silver ornaments which were recovered by him vide memo ex. p-8. subhash sawhney p. w. 9 and ramgopal p. w. 6 are the motbirs of the recovery. they though have turned hostile yet admit that they had put signatures on the recovery memo. there could not be any reason for surnan ali to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. it has not been asked in the cross-examination of surnan ali that he had animus against the petitioner. by the evidence of suman ali and the recovery of memo ex. p-8, it is fully established that the currency notes, gold ornaments and silver ornaments were recovered in consequence of the information supplied by the petitioner.6. the property recovered at the instance of the petitioner has.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

G.L. Gupta, J.

1. Karni Singh has preferred this revision against the appellate judgment DA 8-10-98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar whereby he upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. and sentence of one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- under each count.

2. On 1 -5-96 Arun Kumar, P. W. 1 had lodged a report alleging that burglary had taken place in his house No. 166, G-Block, Ganganagar, when he and his wife were away. It was alleged that the thief had taken away Rs. 82,000/- cash, silver and gold ornaments. On this report a case Under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. was registered. The police during investigation arrested two persons viz. Kami Singh and Rajesh Kumar and recovered the stolen property at their instance. After the completion of the investigation a challan was filed. Charges under Sections 454, 380 and 411, I.P.C. were framed against both the accused who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P. W. 1 Arun Kumar, P. W. 2 Smt. Neelam, P. W. 3 Praveen Kumar, P. W. 4 Samun Ali, P. W. 5 Mahendra Kumar, P. W. 6 Ramgopal, P. W. 7 Harbhajan Singh, P. W. 8 Kesari Chand, P. W. 9 Subhash Sawhney and P. W. 10 Rajendra Prasad. Accused in their statement under Section 313`, Cr.P.C. denied accusation. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Magistrate found the charges under Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. proved against both the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Accused Rajesh was also convicted under Section 25(3) of the Arms Act. The appeal preferred by Kami .Singh proved abortive.

3. Mr. Garg contended that there is no evidence on record showing that the petitioner had entered into the house of Arun Kumar. As the recovery had taken place three months after the occurrence, he contended, the petitioner could be convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. only. He, however, did not challenge the finding of the trial Court that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta contended that the recovery of the stolen property was made within three months and, therefore, the presumption arises that the accused himself had committed the theft and he has been rightly convicted.

5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. P. W. 4 Surnan Ali deposes that after the arrest of the petitioner he gave information Ex. P-7, and on the basis of this information he went to the house of the accused from where he took out currency notes, bracelet - made of gold, and silver ornaments which were recovered by him vide memo Ex. P-8. Subhash Sawhney P. W. 9 and Ramgopal P. W. 6 are the Motbirs of the recovery. They though have turned hostile yet admit that they had put signatures on the recovery memo. There could not be any reason for Surnan Ali to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case. It has not been asked in the cross-examination of Surnan Ali that he had animus against the petitioner. By the evidence of Suman Ali and the recovery of Memo Ex. P-8, it is fully established that the currency notes, gold ornaments and silver ornaments were recovered in consequence of the information supplied by the petitioner.

6. The property recovered at the instance of the petitioner has been identified by Arun Kumar and his wife Neelam to be their own. They had also identified the property in identification proceedings held by the Magistrate. In view of this evidence, it is fully established that the stolen property was recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner.

7. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Since both the presumptions are possible as per illustration (a) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, it is safe to raise the second presumption in the absence of any other evidence against the accused. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner was seen near the house of the complainant on the day the theft was committed. It is also to be noticed that the recovery was made some three months after the alleged theft. The conviction of the petitioner, therefore, Under Section 454 and 380, I.P.C. is not sustainable. He can be convicted only under Section 411, I.P.C.

8. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is altered from Sections 454 and 380, I.P.C. to Section 411, I.P.C. The sentence is reduced. The petitioner shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1999 Same Parties Karni Singh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge G.L. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Arms Act - Sections 25(3); Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 114;...

Criminal