Suchit Ahir vs Emperor

Dhavle, J.—The petitioner has been sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25 u/s 411, I.P.C., in respect of a bullock that Johan Kahar, the owner, lost in July 1928. The evidence is that on 25th January 1930, that is to say, 18 months afterwards, the bullock was found in the house of Bhujhawan Koeri. This Bhujhawan stated that he had purchased the bullock from the petitioner in the Barhampur Mela, which I understand was held about April 1930, that is to say about nine months after the animal had been lost by the owner. Bhujhawan''s story of his purchase of the animal from the petitioner was made out to the satisfaction of the trying Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge and they have concluded that the petitioner was guilty u/s 411.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that even on the finding that it was the petitioner that sold the bullock to Bhujhawan at the Barhampur Mela, this is a case in which the presumption indicated in Illus. (a) u/s 114, Evidence Act cannot properly be applied. It is obvious that if the missing animal is traced to the possession of the petitioner about nine months after its loss, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in possession "of stolen goods soon after the theft." The learned advocate has in support of his contention referred to the well-known case of Ina Sheik v. Queen-Empress [1885] 2 Cal. 160. Their Lordships observed in that case:

But the possession of stolen property, even if accompanied by a failure to give an account as to how such possession was acquired, or by a false account, or by accounts which are contradictory, or by a concealment of the property would raise not a violent or strong presumption but a probable presumption merely.''

In the present case it does not seem to me that there is anything substantial found against the petitioner except the fact that he sold the animal to Bhujhawan outside the Barhampur fair.

The learned advocate has drawn attention to the finding of the learned Sessions Judge from the evidence of witness 1 for the defence: "that the appellant and his brother carry on business in cattle." It does not appear that the lower Courts at all considered the question of whether the possession of the missing animal by the petitioner was so recent as to come within Illus. (a), Section 114, Evidence Act. It is sometimes said that a good deal of cattle lifting goes on in Shahabad, and if so, it is not at all likely that a stolen bullock would be possessed with knowledge of its stolen character by anybody nine months after it was missed. The presumption under the Evidence Act to which I have referred should therefore not have been applied in the present case.

The application is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed upon the petitioner set aside. He is acquitted, and'' should be released at once unless he is liable to detention in some other connexion. The fine, if paid by him, must be refunded.