Suresh Prasad Singh vs The State of Bihar

Aftab Alam, J.—There Is a single petitioner in this case who stands convicted u/s 409 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. At the material time the petitioner was the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Mushrigharari in the district of Samastipur. On January 29, 1982 after transacting the days business the Bank was closed at about 7 P.M. The next day being a holiday and the day after being Sunday was re-opened after two days February 1,1982 and then it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- kept in the iron safe and a D. B. B. L. Gun and the pouch containing some cartridges kept in the Godrej steel almirah inside the strong room of the Bank were missing. Information regarding the theft was given to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Samastipur Branch who came to Mush-righarari along with the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Agriculture Development Branch, Samastipur. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Samastipur (P.W.5) gave his fardbeyan on the same day at 12.30 P.M. which was recorded by the Officier-in-charge, Mushrigharari P.S.at Mushrigharari. A formal F.I.R, incorporating the fardbeyan was drawn up later at 2.30 P.M. which gave rise to Sarai Ranjan P.S. Case No. 6/82. The F.I.R, simply stated about the theft of the aforesaid sum of money from the safe and the D.B.B.L Gun and the pouch of cartridges from the steel almirah kept inside the strong room and was instituted against unknown accused. However, the Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner who was tried for offences under sections 409, 120B and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 was the Bank Guard, P.W. 2 was the Clerk-cum-Cashier posted at the Branch where theft was committed P.Ws 3 and 4 were the Messenger Boy and the Sweeper respectively who were working in the Branch. P.W.5 was the informant who at that time was the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Samastipur Branch and P.W. 6 was the Investigating Officer.

At the conclusion of the trial the petitioner was convicted u/s 409 of the Penal Code and was sentenced as aforesaid. His appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court which confirmed the judgment and order passed by the trial court.

The petitioner''s conviction is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The fact situation which the learned courts below have been able to construct on the basis of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses is as follows. The main entrance of the Bank had double doors, one wooden and the other of steel shutters, each door has a lock and there were two sets of keys for the main entrance. One set of keys for the main entrance remained with the Bank guard (P.W.1), while the other set was kept by the Branch Manager, the petitioner. Inside tine Bank there was a strong room in which there was an iron safe and a Godrej steel almirah. The almirah had a locker inside which had a separate lock. The key of the iron safe was kept inside the locker in the almirah. The key of the locker and the steel almirah was kept by the Branch Manager, the petitioner. The door of the strong room was also locked and its key too was kept by the Branch Manger, the petitioner. In other words, the Branch Manager, the petitioner had a set of keys for all the locks which were required to be opened/broken for committing the theft, that is to say, for the two doors of the main entrance, for the door of the strong room, for the iron almirah and the locker inside it and for the iron safe the key for which was kept inside the locker. The Bank guard, on the other hand, had only the keys for the two doors of the main entrance. He had no access to the strong room or to the steel almirah and the iron safe kept inside the strong room.

It has further come in evidence that on 29.1.1982 the Bank had a balance of Rs. 1,98,297.86 paise which was kept by the petitioner in the iron safe at about 4.30 P.M. Thereafter the iron safe was locked and the staff went on with their works. At about 7 P.M. the petitioner started to close the bank. He had the Bank guard put his gun in the steel al-mirah and he himself took the pouch of cartridges from the Bank guard and put it in the locker inside the almirah. The al-mirah was thereafter locked and the staff came out of the strong room. The petitioner then gave the key to the Bank guard asking him to put the lock on the strong room. He did so and returned the key to the Branch Manager. They then went out and the main entrance of the Bank was also locked.

It has also come in evidence that that night the Bank guard could not get the bus to go to his home and therefore he spent the night inside the Bank. The action of the Bank guard was highly irregular and it also made available to the defence, the plea that it might have been the Bank guard who committed the theft. The courts below however considered the defence plea and rejected it.

On the basis of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the courts below came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner alone who had access to all the locks and therefore he must be held responsible for the loss of the money and the gun and the cartridges.

It seems to me that both the courts below have proceeded taking it for granted that the theft was commited by any one among the staff of the bank. In case it was an inside job, the petitioner indeed appears to be the most likely suspect. But in the facts and circumstances of this case can the hand of someone from outside the bank be ruled out absolutely?

It is indeed true that the facts and circumstances coming to light give rise to a strong suspicion against the petitioner but it has been said on numerous occasions that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. In my view the circumstances coming to light do not constitute an unbroken chain of events which would lead to only one conclusion regarding the guilt of the petitioner and I think that the petitioner in this case is entitled to the benefit of doubt. I accordingly extend that benefit to him and aquit him of the charge. The judgments of the courts below are accordingly set aside.

Before parting with the records of this case, however, I would like lo make it clear that the petitioner in this case has been given the benefit of a very thin doubt and hi:; acquittal in the criminal case, therefore would have no effect on any discipline proceeding that might have been initiatee against him by his employer, the bank. In the result, this Criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.