In Re: Ramalinga Goundan

King, J.—The petitioner has been convicted u/s 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act by the Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, and

his conviction has been confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence for the prosecution shows that on the morning of the 9th

October, 1936, a miscellaneous collection of arms and ammunition was found in a house belonging to the petitioner at Kuppandam palayam. The

petitioner had been arrested on a charge of murder in Coimbatore the previous evening. Except the fact that the arms and ammunition were found

in the petitioner''s house there is really no evidence for the prosecution and the case against the petitioner depends upon the evidence of the

discovery in the house, whether it is of itself sufficient for a conviction or not. The defence was that the contraband property must have been foisted

into the house by some one of the petitioner''s enemies and an attempt was made to prove by positive evidence that persons had been seen

tampering with the roof of the house on the night before the property was seized. Both the Courts have unhesitatingly refused to accept this

evidence for the defence and I see no reason to differ from them. They point out the impossibility of any attempt having been made within so brief

an interval to foist a case against the petitioner. The Courts below however appear to have laid very much stress upon this failure of the defence, to

reach another conclusion, namely, that because the defence put forward was the tampering with the roof within a few hours of the discovery of the

property, the petitioner must have himself lived in the house until very shortly before the discovery, and in fact the Courts below seem to me to

have proceeded on the assumption that there can have been no possible alternative case between that for the prosecution and that attempted to be

proved by the defence. When defence evidence of this kind is rejected, the situation simply is as if the evidence had never existed. If the defence

evidence is believed, it would of course rebut the prosecution. If it is not believed, the prosecution is left just where it was before the defence

witnesses were called and it cannot be assumed for a moment from the evidence let in by the defence that there is any admission that the petitioner

or his family were living in the house until the night before or a day or two before the discovery of the property. The learned Sessions Judge

assumes in paragraph 3 of his judgment that the petitioner and his wife were in the house a day or two previously. The petitioner does not say this

in any statement of his own and I have found no trace of any possible statement to that effect in the evidence of his wife. No witnesses were called

by the prosecution to prove just at what time the petitioner was in residence in this house and the omission to adduce this evidence is of some

importance when it is remembered that the petitioner was in the habit of staying at no less than three houses. So far as the evidence goes it is

impossible to be certain that this house had not remained untenanted for a long period. No doubt the house was locked and would normally be

locked. No doubt a grave suspicion is cast upon the owner of the house in a case of this kind, but after all the articles found are not prima facie the

type of articles which would be kept by a man who wished to shoot with a gun or a revolver without a license. Most of them are quite

unserviceable and there is a mass of miscellaneous collection of cartridges some of which might and some of which could not fit the gun or

revolver. The property found therefore of itself suggests the possibility that the plea of foisting put forward by the petitioner in this case may not be

altogether unreasonable. If there had been clear evidence that the petitioner had been living in this house until within a short period before the

discovery, I do not think I would have been justified in interfering with the conviction. But as no attempt has been made to prove just when the

accused was last residing in the house I think a sufficient element of reasonable doubt is introduced into this case to make it possible that the

petitioner''s plea might be true and to warrant his acquittal I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and direct the petitioner to be

acquitted and that his bail bonds be cancelled.