# ' 8!10 AYODHYA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJA.STIIAN

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 880
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/8-10-ayodhya-singh-v-state-of-raja-stiian-5733
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

,.
..
'
8!10
AYODHYA SINGH
v.
STATE OF RAJA.STIIAN
August, 17, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. ·R. KHANNA, JI.]
I.P c ,_...s 4S7 and 280 read with S. 15.-Appe/lant found inpo.ue.ssion
nf stolen·g~ within 11 dayJ of the the/f-Appellilnt if tullty-$, U4 of
the Evidtnc:t Act-Its scope.
1b.e appellant and a.oother were convkted u/s- 457 a:nd 380 read with
s. 75 LP.C. by Add. Munisitf Magistnte,. The prosecution ca,e was that
00 9th Fcbnrn ~y 1964, certain gold and sliver om~Jl~. were stolen from
:1 jeweller's hvuse in Jaipuc Ci.ty. The accused, ~
~lllgb . wu ~
after 30mc t.irr.e. The finger prmts left by the culJltlta.Uied with the epcamen finger im;,remons (\f Hira Singh accused.
Further in punuanu of
did0Sl2re sa!~rnoot made by Hira Singh accUBed, oerta.in amount of
meney was recovered frml th:: wife cif the Hira Singh's brotber. A nlll:ll.b«
of stolen articl~ a.od an instrument of house-hreaJdng were also found. On
iotercegation of Hira Sing~ accmed. poliee ruidcd the bouse of tbe eppelland and recovered from rhe place I 8 stolen article! on February 21, 1964.
1be appeUant was arrested 4 day5 later and 1rem his penonal search, 26
item& of stolen property were r~covercd .
In pursuance of information IUpplied by tht appellant, the police recovered a number of stolen gold article>
b~ in a gra,~yard. Tbe trial court aC\:cpted the 'Prosecution ca3e and
c.on~ and sentenced the accused penon;. Appeals and revision petittona fikd bv t~ accused ~re diJmiMed. On appeal to this Court. appcllant'a CC?unst~ rat~ ln:er alta, tht following objcctioos:-(1) the propriety
of the tden~~ti~ of tht recovered articlea w..s ;ueailed; (2) the judgme_nta of the tnal court and the Additional Sessions Judge were not very
·~~factory (3) that there bas been a misjoinder ot charges ( 4) the convtettoo of _the appellanl ahould have been under s 411 I PC and not
under sectiOns 4$7 and 380 J.P.C.
·
' · ·
Dismiuing the appeals,
B
c
D
1
HE~.J~ll: (1) Tho recover~d urticlcs wer0 mi:ud with other similar arti~
f
c Cl an
nece&~ary precautions were taken by the Magistrate The article
h'!cbe~~~~~d~~t~fted hyby t~e complainant and his father. Nothinl ex>gent
be not accepted.
o w
t e statement of the Magistrate In tb.l.t reapect
(2) Although the High eo t
b
.
Court, the Additional Scsalona ~r 0 served that the judgments of tho mal
ataoce I• not very material ·~c -, udge we~ not aat:Ufactory, but thls cirt'UJD·
Ia details and c~me to the con~r~ the:•gh Court coD!Idered the evidence
(i
been proved. Thuefore it can~s ~nbe at 1the Ci!e against tho accuseJ bad
b«n prejudiced In any ,~11y.
0
sad that the accused penon.s had
(~)
. So far u the que5tion or ...
1ubmt.s1on ia without any force D'li&JOind.:r of ~harga Is cooec:ruo:J, the
•how that tne accu~d loi U
• bec~use the t'lrcumstances of the c:1s~
were charged and that th~ Y comm,tt.:d tho offences with which thev
Jl
the ll!"e tranaactioo. Thee tw~cncea were committed In the cour!e of
C
an~ ~ed together Such a coun a~cused could consequently be cbarged
nnunal Procedure.
e 11 PtTmltted by s. 239 of the Code of
-. !
I ·I
I ..
j
I
;i ·' d
;f
;,
1.~
i
I '
A
B
c
D
E
.r
G
H
AYODHYA v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
881
( 4) The house-breaking and theft took place on the night between
February 8 and February 9, 1964. The various stolen articles were recovered from the appellant) house on February 21, 1963 ~ the~e~
after from his person on February 25, 1964. The appellant was m police
custody ·after February 25 1964 and more stolen articles were recovered
on March 3 1964 from 'the graveyard in pursuance of his
disclosure
statement. The articles which were recovered on March 3, 1964
can
therefore -be held to be in possession of the appellant on February 25,
1964. It would thus follow that within 17 days of the theft, the appellant was found in possession of the stolen articles.
According to the
illustration (a) of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in
possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thi

## Text

,.
..
'
8!10
AYODHYA SINGH
v.
STATE OF RAJA.STIIAN
August, 17, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND H. ·R. KHANNA, JI.]
I.P c ,_...s 4S7 and 280 read with S. 15.-Appe/lant found inpo.ue.ssion
nf stolen·g~ within 11 dayJ of the the/f-Appellilnt if tullty-$, U4 of
the Evidtnc:t Act-Its scope.
1b.e appellant and a.oother were convkted u/s- 457 a:nd 380 read with
s. 75 LP.C. by Add. Munisitf Magistnte,. The prosecution ca,e was that
00 9th Fcbnrn ~y 1964, certain gold and sliver om~Jl~. were stolen from
:1 jeweller's hvuse in Jaipuc Ci.ty. The accused, ~
~lllgb . wu ~
after 30mc t.irr.e. The finger prmts left by the culJltlta.Uied with the epcamen finger im;,remons (\f Hira Singh accused.
Further in punuanu of
did0Sl2re sa!~rnoot made by Hira Singh accUBed, oerta.in amount of
meney was recovered frml th:: wife cif the Hira Singh's brotber. A nlll:ll.b«
of stolen articl~ a.od an instrument of house-hreaJdng were also found. On
iotercegation of Hira Sing~ accmed. poliee ruidcd the bouse of tbe eppelland and recovered from rhe place I 8 stolen article! on February 21, 1964.
1be appeUant was arrested 4 day5 later and 1rem his penonal search, 26
item& of stolen property were r~covercd .
In pursuance of information IUpplied by tht appellant, the police recovered a number of stolen gold article>
b~ in a gra,~yard. Tbe trial court aC\:cpted the 'Prosecution ca3e and
c.on~ and sentenced the accused penon;. Appeals and revision petittona fikd bv t~ accused ~re diJmiMed. On appeal to this Court. appcllant'a CC?unst~ rat~ ln:er alta, tht following objcctioos:-(1) the propriety
of the tden~~ti~ of tht recovered articlea w..s ;ueailed; (2) the judgme_nta of the tnal court and the Additional Sessions Judge were not very
·~~factory (3) that there bas been a misjoinder ot charges ( 4) the convtettoo of _the appellanl ahould have been under s 411 I PC and not
under sectiOns 4$7 and 380 J.P.C.
·
' · ·
Dismiuing the appeals,
B
c
D
1
HE~.J~ll: (1) Tho recover~d urticlcs wer0 mi:ud with other similar arti~
f
c Cl an
nece&~ary precautions were taken by the Magistrate The article
h'!cbe~~~~~d~~t~fted hyby t~e complainant and his father. Nothinl ex>gent
be not accepted.
o w
t e statement of the Magistrate In tb.l.t reapect
(2) Although the High eo t
b
.
Court, the Additional Scsalona ~r 0 served that the judgments of tho mal
ataoce I• not very material ·~c -, udge we~ not aat:Ufactory, but thls cirt'UJD·
Ia details and c~me to the con~r~ the:•gh Court coD!Idered the evidence
(i
been proved. Thuefore it can~s ~nbe at 1the Ci!e against tho accuseJ bad
b«n prejudiced In any ,~11y.
0
sad that the accused penon.s had
(~)
. So far u the que5tion or ...
1ubmt.s1on ia without any force D'li&JOind.:r of ~harga Is cooec:ruo:J, the
•how that tne accu~d loi U
• bec~use the t'lrcumstances of the c:1s~
were charged and that th~ Y comm,tt.:d tho offences with which thev
Jl
the ll!"e tranaactioo. Thee tw~cncea were committed In the cour!e of
C
an~ ~ed together Such a coun a~cused could consequently be cbarged
nnunal Procedure.
e 11 PtTmltted by s. 239 of the Code of
-. !
I ·I
I ..
j
I
;i ·' d
;f
;,
1.~
i
I '
A
B
c
D
E
.r
G
H
AYODHYA v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
881
( 4) The house-breaking and theft took place on the night between
February 8 and February 9, 1964. The various stolen articles were recovered from the appellant) house on February 21, 1963 ~ the~e~
after from his person on February 25, 1964. The appellant was m police
custody ·after February 25 1964 and more stolen articles were recovered
on March 3 1964 from 'the graveyard in pursuance of his
disclosure
statement. The articles which were recovered on March 3, 1964
can
therefore -be held to be in possession of the appellant on February 25,
1964. It would thus follow that within 17 days of the theft, the appellant was found in possession of the stolen articles.
According to the
illustration (a) of s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a man who is in
possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or
has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account
for his possession. In the present case, the appellant has not been able
to account for his possession of the stolen articles. The' explanation furnished by him is not all worthy of credence.
'ihe courts below were
right in convicting the accused.
The fact that the appellant was found
soon after the theft in possession of a very large number of stolen articles as well as the other circumstances, show that the appellant was himself the thief and not the receiver of stolen goods. [885A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cr. A. No. 212
of
1'968.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 19, 1968 of the Rajasthan High Court in Crl. Revision
No. 383 of 1967.
S. P. Singh and Shiv .Pujan Singh for the appellant.
Debabroto Mookerjee, P. C. Kapur and K. B. Mehta for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J. Ayodhya Singh appellant and Hira Singh were
convicted by Additional Munsiff Magistrate Jaipur for offences
under section 457 and 380 read with section 75 Indian Penal
Code. Ayodhya Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous impnsonment for a period ot two years and to pay a fine of rupees
two thousand for the offence under section 457 read with section
75 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, Ayodhya
Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of six month&.
Similar sentence was awarded to
Ayodhya Singh for the offence under section 380 read with section 75 lndian Penal Code. The two sentences were ordered to
run consecutively. · Hira Singh was sentenaed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of rupees
one thousand, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a further period of six months for the offence under section 457
read with section 75 Indian Penal Code.
Similar sentence was
awarded to Hira Singh for rthe offence under section 380 read with
section 75 Indian Penal Code. The two sentences of Hira Singh
were also ordered to run consecutively. Appeals filed by Ayodhya
Singh and Hira Singh were dismissed by Additiot\al
Sessions
Judge Jaipur.
Revision petitions filed by Ayodhya Singh and
7-;L172Sup.C.I.f73
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197311 s.c.R.
Bira· Singh in Rajasthan High Court met with no better fate.
Ayodhya Singh thereafter filed this appeal by special leave through
jail.
The prosecution cnse is that Kistoor Chand (PW 73) deals in
gold and silver. He was running a shop in Johri bazar Jaipur, but
sometime before the occurrence, he had to vacate the sh-op and
remove the gold and silver ornaments worth over a lakh of rupees
to his hous.e situated in Manni Ramji-ka-Rasta in Jaipur City.
The house has four storeycs and the ornaments were ljUt in a room
on the third storey of the house. Cash amount was also kept by
Kistoor Chand.in that room. When Kistoor Chand got up on the
morning of February 9, 1964 he found that the big window of
the room in which ornaments had been kept was lying open. On
opening the room it was found that the boxes containing ornaments
were lying empty.
A number of articles were seen scattered in.
the room.
Report about the occurrence was lodged at police
station Manak Chowk Jaipur City by Mahindra Kumar (PW 74),
son of Kistoor Chand at 7-30 a.m. on February 9, 1964. A case
was then registered by the police under sections 457 and 380
Indian Penal Code.
Sub Inspector Basarat Vallabh went soon after the registratioa
'3f the case to Kistoor Chand's house and found that culprits had
effected their entry into the room by breaking open the window.
The Sub Inspector saw a number of articles scattered in the room.
The containers for keeping gol4 and silver ornaments were lying
empty. A police photographer was sent for.
The photographer
developed the finger printS left by the culprits on a silver plate
lying in an almirah of the room. The photographs of the finger
impressions were compared with the specimen finger impressions
of Hira Singh accused and it was found that they tallied with
each other.
Hira Singh accused was arrested on February 21, 1964. In
pursuance of disclosure statement of Hira Singh Rs. 1, 790 were
recovered from Saraswati Bai, wife of the brother of Hira Slngh.
A box was also recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement
of Hira Singh and a number of stolen articles were found in that
box. Hira Singh also got recovered an instrument of house
breaking.
As a result of the interrogation of Hira Singh, the
police raided the house of Ayodhya Singh appellant at Jairi on
February 21. 1964 and recovered from that place 18 stolen articles.
Ayod~tya Singh was arrested by the police on February 25, 1964
at Etawah and from his nersonal ·search 26 items of stolen property were recovered.
The recovered property included cash
amount of Rs. 6.485/ - inc1uding 28 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.• 100/-. In pursuance of information supplied by
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
I
c
D
E
F
G
...
AYODHYA V. RAJASTHAN tKhanna, J.)
883
Ayodhya Singh, the police recovered on March 3, 1964 a number
of stolen gold articles wrapped in an old·baniyan which had been
b·uried in a graveyard near milestone No. 5 on the Agra-EtawahKanpur road.
Identifications of recovered ornaments were held
by Shri A. C. Bafna Magistrate (PW 72) on July 17, 1964 and
Ju!y 20, 1964. The recovered ornaments were then identified by
Kistoor Chand and Mahendra Kumar PWs as those which belonged to them and ~hich had been stolen.
At the trial the two accused denied the prosecution allocations
against them and stated that they had been falsely involved in tl1is
case.
According to them, the various articles which had been.
recovered by the police belonged to them. Regarding the recovery ol some gold bars from him, the appellant stated that he got.
the bars prepared for the purpose of purchasing bonds. The trial
court accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced
the accused as above. The recovered articles were ordered to be
restored to Mahendra Kumar complainant. Appeals and revision
petitions filed by the accused, as stated earlier, were dismissed.
We have heard Mr. Singh who has argued the case amicus
curiae. on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that there
is no merit in the appeal. The fact that some persons had broken
into the house of Kistoor Chand on the night between February 8
and February 9, 1964 and had removed valuable articles consisting of cash, jewellery and silverware is proved by the testimo1,1y
of Kistoor· Chand and Mahindra Kumar.
The prosecution has
also led evidence to show that a number of sotlen articles were
recovered in·pursuance of the disclosure statement of f{ira Singh
accused after he was arrested on February 21, 1964. The interrogation of Hira Singh led to the police raid on the house of
Ayodhya Singh appellant wherefrom a number of stolen articles
were recovered. Ayodhya Singh was arrested on F."ebtuary 25,
1964 and some of the stolen articles were recovered from his
person.
Ayodhya Singh then:after made disclosure
statement
which led to the recov~ry of more stolen articles from a graveyard
on March 3, 1964. The appellate court and the High Court accepted tne. evidence adduced by the prosecution in this respect.
The version of the accused that the recovered articles belonged to
them was rejected. The courts below in this content relied-upon
the identification of the recovered atiicles by Kistoor Chand and
Mahindra Kumar.
Nothing has been brought to our notice hy
Mr. Singh as may justify interference with the appraisement of the
evidence of the trial magistrate, the Additional Sessions J t!dge
and the HiQh Court.
One siQ:ni[lc-ant circumstance which shows
the falsity of the claim made by the appe1lant that tbc recovered
articles belonged to him is the fact that some of those articles ·.verc
recovered from a Qravevard near milestone No. 5 at Agra-EtawahKanpur road. The articles were found to have been buried there
884
SUPREME COURT REPOh 1
[1 , 3] 1 "·'-
and were recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement ui
the appellant. If the aforesaid recovered articles consisting of
gold bars belonged to the appellant, it is difficult to believe that
he would have buried them in a lonely spot in a graveyard. The
fact that the appellant buried them in a graveyard shows his anxiety
to conceal those articles so that no on~ may know that he was· in
possession of those articles.
Mr. Singh has assailed the propriety of the identification of
A
B
the recovered articles. In this· respect we find that the evidence of
Shri A. C. Bafna Magistrate (PW 72) shows that the recovered
articles were mixed with other similar articles and all necessary
precautions were taken.
Kistoor Chand and Mahindra Kumar
correctly identified the recovered a~ticles~ Nothing cogent has
C
been shown to us as· to why the statement of Shri Bafna in this
respect be LOt accepted.
Mr. Singh has referred to the observations of the High Court
that the judgments of the trial magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge were not very satisfactory.
Th.is circumstance, in
our opinion, is not very material because the High Court considered
D
the evidence which had been adduced in ~he case at some length
and came to the conclusion that the case against the accused had
been proved. In View of the fact that the evidence on record has
been discussed in detail by the High Court, it cannot be said that
the appellant has be,.;_ prejudiced because of the fact that the judg~
ments of the trial magistrate and the appell<~~te court were not as
E
elaborate as they should have been.
A faint attempt was made by ~r. Singh to show that there
had been misjoinder of charges. This submission is plainly with~
out any force because the circumstances of the case show that the
accused jointly committed the offences with which they
were
chargoo· and that those offences were committed in the course of
J
the same transaction.
The two accused could consequently be
~barged and tried together as such a course is permitted by sec~
tion 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Lastly, it has been argued that the conviction of the appellant
should have been under section 411 Indian Penal Code and not
under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code. This contention
G
is equally untenable. The house break!ng and theft in the house
of Kistoor Chand took place on the niglit between February 8 and
Februaiy 9, 1964.
The various stolen articles were recovered
from the appellant's house .on February 21, 1964 and thereafter
from his person on February 25, 1964. The appellant was in
police custody after February 25, 1964 and more stolen articles
H
were recovered on March 3, 1964 from the graveyard in pursuance of his disclosure statement.
The articles which
were
recovered on March 3, 1964 can consequently be held to be in
the possession of the appellant on February 25, 1694. It would
A
B
c
D
E
F
A,.YODHYA v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
885
thus follow that within 17 days of the theft the appellant was
found in possession of the stolen articles. According to illustration (a) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a man who
is in possession of stolen goods: soon after the theft is either the
thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless
he can account for his possession.
It would, in our opinion,
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the
court should draw the presumption that a person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft and who has not been
able to account for his possession is the thief or whether he is
the receiver of the goods knowi:ng them to be stolen. We may
state at this stage that the appellant has not been able to account
for his possession of the stolen articles and the explanation furnished by him .is not all worthy of credence. Looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the courts
below were justified in drawing. the presumption that the appellant
was guilty of the offence under section 457 and 380 Indian Penal
Code. The fact that the _culprits entered the room on the third
floor by opening the window and thereafter broke open a lifrge
number of boxes and almirahs and removed huge quantity of gold
and silverware shows that it was not the work of a single individual. The fact that the appellant was found soon after the theft
in possession of a very large number of stolen articles shows that
he was himself the thief and not the receiver of stolen goods.
The present is not a case wherein one or two or a very few of the
stolen articles were found in the possession of the appeilant soon
after the theft. On th~ contrary, the bulk of stolen articles were
recovered from him. The number and the nature of the stolen
articles recovered from the appellant soon after the theft coupled
with the other circumstances of the case, in our opinion, warrant
the presumption that the appellant himself committed the theft
after entering the room on the third storey of Kistoor Chand's
house throul!'h the window.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
S.C.