State of H.P. vs Purshotam

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 20.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, Camp at Arki in case No. 37/2 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 9.3.1992 at about 10.00 a.m, the complainant Naratu Ram locked his house in Village Chanya and went to his cowshed which was at a distance of 1 km. from his house. He returned to his house at about 1.00 p.m. He found that the locks of his house and trunks were broken and theft had been committed in his house. He even without checking, what had been stolen, rushed to the Police Station, Arki and lodged a report vide complaint Ext.PW4/A on the basis of which FIR PW6/A was recorded.

The accused was arrested during the course of the investigation and allegedly confessed to have committed theft of ornaments in the house of Naratu Ram. According to the prosecution, at the instance of the accused, one silver rod of 9 tolas was recovered from PW/7 Sh.Harish Chand Malhotra, a shopkeeper at Shimla. Similarly, one silver rod was recovered from PW/9 Tarsem Lal, a shopkeeper at Village Bharari in District Hamirpur and one silver rod and one Chhalbali was recovered from PW/10 Sh.Subhash Chand, a shopkeeper at Village Jahu, District Bilaspur.

Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the theft and the whole case of the prosecution is based on the recovery of these articles.

The learned Trial Court after discussing the entire evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to link the recovery of the silver rods and the Chalbali with the accused. Admittedly, no disclosure statement of the accused has been recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. When any accused, while in custody, makes a statement which can lead to the discovery of any fact, the same must be recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The confessional part of the statement is not admissible but only the information which is given by the accused which leads to the discovery of a fresh fact is admissible. There is no evidence that the accused made any oral or documentary disclosure statement.

The silver rods are alleged to have been prepared from the ornaments sold by the accused to the shopkeepers. There is nothing which can clearly prove that these rods were prepared by melting some particular ornaments. No receipts about the purchase of the ornaments have been produced. In fact, PW/7 Harish Malhotra stated that his servant Puran Chand had purchased one silver Chak from the accused. In cross-examination, PW/7 admitted that he was not present when the said Chak was purchased. Therefore, the accused cannot be linked with the Chak, allegedly purchased by Puran Chand.

Surprisingly, even the one ornament which was recovered in the original condition, i.e., Chalbali was not got identified from the complainant, Naratu Ram. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that this Chhalbali belonged to Naratu Ram.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.