Emperor vs A deaf and dumb person

Wort, J.—This case is referred to this Court by the Deputy Magistrate of Manbhum under S. 471, Criminal P.C. The accused is both deaf and dumb; his name and his place of abode unknown. He was charged under S. 379, Penal Code, and alternatively under S. 411, that is say for theft or having received stolen property. I do not think that it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the evidence which was adduced before the Magistrate establishes the fact that the property, a suit case, the subject matter of the charge, had in fact been stolen, although speaking for myself I must say that the evidence might have been a little more detailed. The evidence was that the owner of this suit case was travelling between stations Tiruldih and Suisa when he missed the suit case. He gave information of this loss at one of the stations. The station master telegraphed back to the previous station and at that station the station master going into the passenger hall saw the accused trying to force open a suit case and not unreasonably came to the conclusion that the suit case did not belong to the accused; he then put the accused under restraint. The owner eventually appeared, produced the key and in other ways identified the article as his own property.

As regards theft, as I have said, it is not unreasonable to hold that the evidence does establish that fact. The owner might have given evidence that it could not have disappeared unless it had been removed by a theft. The evidence as it stands, however which I think may be accepted, is that the suit case was missing between the stations to which I have referred. Now on that evidence I think it impossible to come to the conclusion that the accused stole the suit case. It is not one of those cases in which the thief or the alleged thief is found in possession of a stolen property immediately after the theft in such circumstances as to preclude the possibility of some other person having stolen the property. In this case some time had elapsed between the alleged theft and the time at which the accused was found to be in possession of the property. We are left therefore to the case of having received stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. The Magistrate in his reference states that he made signs to the accused, but it was impossible in the circumstances to know whether the accused realized what the Magistrate was attempting to communicate to him; and it naturally follows that it is impossible to know whether the accused realized the quality of his act. The evidence as it stands, had he been a person who was in possession of his normal senses, would have been complete; but u/s 411, it is necessary to prove that the property was stolen and that the accused knew or had reason to believe the same to be stolen property and proof of that in this case, in my judgment, was impossible. That being so it is impossible for this Court to record any conviction or therefore to award any sentence. This is not a case which can be referred or reported to the Local Government under S. 471, as S. 471 contemplates the committing of a crime by a person who owing to the state of his mind cannot be deemed to have known the quality of his act. The offence with which the accused is charged cannot be said to have been committed unless the accused person knew the property to have been stolen and, as I have already held, in this case it cannot be said to be so. The case does not come within S 471, Criminal P.C. We can adopt no other coarse in this case than to order the accused to be discharged.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agre.