# SHEO NATH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 796
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 1968
- **Bench:** S. M. Sikri, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sheo-nath-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-4947
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)-Section 114 illustration
(a)-Recovery
froni nppe/lant's shop of cloth stolen in
dacoity-Conviction
under- s.
396 1.P.C. solely based on discovery of cloth and their identification-J11fere11ces 10 be dran·11 under s. 114. Evidence Act.
1-he house of the appellant, a cloth merchant, was searched and three
Jengths of cloth ""·ere recovered which were subsequently identified
as
C
having been s.tolcn from a shop in a dacoity in Vii'hich clothes, ornaments,
ca:;h etc. were stolen.
The appellant was not named by the eye.witnesses
cir in the dying declaration as having taken part in the dacoity.
Relying
on the d!scovery o"f the cloth and their identification the High Court convicted hiril under s. 395 Penal c·ode. The Court observed that it was legitimate to infer that he was one of the dacoits in view of illust.r:ation (a)
to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
In the appeal to this Court it was
contended that the High Court should have convicted the appellant only
D
under section 411 Penal Code.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : On the facts the only legitimate presumption to be drawn is
that the appellant knew that the ~oops were stolen but .he did not know
that they were stolen in a dacoity.
All the property which was stolen hy
the dacoits was no! recovered from the appellant. The appellant, a cloth
merchant, may well have acquired these goods as a receiver.
It has not
been shown that in the village in which the appellant lived it was known
E
thet a dacoity had taken place and goods had been ste>len in the dace>ity.
[799 B-CJ
IVa.<im Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 191 distinguished;
s,u1wa/ Khan v. State of Rajn<tlwn, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 54, re'ferred to.

## Text

796
SHEO NATH
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
October 15, 1969
A
(S. M. SIKRI AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
B
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)-Section 114 illustration
(a)-Recovery
froni nppe/lant's shop of cloth stolen in
dacoity-Conviction
under- s.
396 1.P.C. solely based on discovery of cloth and their identification-J11fere11ces 10 be dran·11 under s. 114. Evidence Act.
1-he house of the appellant, a cloth merchant, was searched and three
Jengths of cloth ""·ere recovered which were subsequently identified
as
C
having been s.tolcn from a shop in a dacoity in Vii'hich clothes, ornaments,
ca:;h etc. were stolen.
The appellant was not named by the eye.witnesses
cir in the dying declaration as having taken part in the dacoity.
Relying
on the d!scovery o"f the cloth and their identification the High Court convicted hiril under s. 395 Penal c·ode. The Court observed that it was legitimate to infer that he was one of the dacoits in view of illust.r:ation (a)
to Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
In the appeal to this Court it was
contended that the High Court should have convicted the appellant only
D
under section 411 Penal Code.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : On the facts the only legitimate presumption to be drawn is
that the appellant knew that the ~oops were stolen but .he did not know
that they were stolen in a dacoity.
All the property which was stolen hy
the dacoits was no! recovered from the appellant. The appellant, a cloth
merchant, may well have acquired these goods as a receiver.
It has not
been shown that in the village in which the appellant lived it was known
E
thet a dacoity had taken place and goods had been ste>len in the dace>ity.
[799 B-CJ
IVa.<im Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1956] S.C.R. 191 distinguished;
s,u1wa/ Khan v. State of Rajn<tlwn, A.LR. 1956 S.C. 54, re'ferred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Criminal Appeal No.
49cf1969.
F
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
December 2, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 1277 of 1968.
R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.
0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J, The only question which arises in this appeal by
special leave is whether the appellant, Sheo Nath, should be
convicted under s. 396, I.P.C., ors. 41 I, l.P.C., ors. 412, 1.P.C.
The facts as found by the High Court are these. A dacoity was
committed at the shop of Ram Murat in Dhaneja village by 15
to 20 persons on August 19, 1966, at about 11.30 p.m. One
dacoit, Ram Shankar, was armed with a gun while others carried
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
SHEO NATH V. U.P. STATE (Sikri, J.)
797
spcars, Gandasas and lathis.
During the course of the dacoity
Ram Murat was injured.
One Pancham, who lived in a house
not for from Ram Murat's shop, and two others came running on
hearing the noise.
Pancham was shot down with the gun by
dacoit Ram Sbankar.
The dacoits then escaped with clothes,
ornaments, cash, etc., looted from Ram Murat's shop. After the
dacoits left Ram Murat dictated a report about the occurrence in
which he named Ram Shankar Singh, Jaintri Prasad Singh, Nanhe
Singh and Sulai accused as having been among the culprits and
this report was sent to the Jalalpur police station, five miles away,.
where it was received and recorded at 6 a.111. next morning.
On August 22, 1966, i.e., three days after the dacoity, the
home of Sheo Nath, appellant, was searched and three lengths of
cloth were recovered which were subsequently identified by Ram
Murnt and a tailor named Bismillah as having been stolen from
Ram Murat"s shop in the dacoity.
The High Court, agreeing with the learned Sessions Judge,.
relied on the cvir:Ience of three eye-witnesses regarding the manner
in which th occurrence took place and regarding ;he participa-·
. ticn of the four named accused persons. Shea Nath had not been
named by the eye-witnesses or in the dying declaration of Pancham and no witness claimed to have identified him taking part
in the dacoity. But, relying on the discovery of three lengths of
cloth and their identification, the High Court convicied Sheo Nati,
under s. 396, 1.P.C.
The High Court observed :
·
.. :
"From the material on record we are fully convinced that the Exhs. 2 and 3 were st6kn from the shop
of Rairi Murat in the course of the dacoity committed
in the night between 19 to 20 August 1966, and since
they were recovered from the possession of Sheonath
appellant only 2 or 3 days later, it is legitimatie to infer
that he was one of the dacoits vide illustration (a) to '·
section 114 of the Evidence Act. Sheo Nath, therefore,
has been rightly convicted under section 396, I.P.C."'
The learned counsel for the appellant co~tends that in the
circumstances of the case the High Court should not have convicted the appellant under s. 396, I.P.C:, but only under s. 411,
!t~~~t'.on 114 of the Evidence Act and illustration (a) re1d
·" "114. The Court may presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the cmmnon course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their
relation to facts of the particular case.
illustrations.
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
The Court may presume-
( a) that a man who is in possession of stolen
goods after the theft, is either the thief or has received
the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can
account for his possession."
This Section was considered by this Court in Sanwal Khan v.
State of Rajasthan ( 1). This Court, after considering some High
Court cases, observed :
"In our judgment no hard and fast rule can be laid
down as to what inference should be drawn from a certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence
against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that
the theft and the murder must have been committed at
the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that
the person in possession of the stolen property was the
murderer.
Suspicion cannot take the place of proof."
In Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2) this Court held that
"recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property while
it would be presumptive evidence against a prisoner on the charge
of robbery would similarly be evidence against him on the charge
of murder." On the facts of that case this Court held that the
appellant was rightly convicted of the offence of murder and
robbery. But, apart from the possession of stolen property, there
were other circumstances indicating that the appellant was guilty
of murder and robbery. The circumstances were that the appellant in that case had travelied with the deceased on his bullock
cart alone and the deceased never reached his home and was found
murdered.
The. appellant was found in possession of the goods
of the deceased three days after and the appellant made no effort
to trace the whereabouts of the deceased or lodge information of
his disappearance from the bullock cart.
In the present case three presumptions are possible from the
recovery of the stolen goods from the appellant three days after
the occurrence of the dacoity :
( 1) that the appellant took part in the dacoity;
( 2) that he received stolen goods knowing that the goods
were stolen in the commission of a dacoity; and
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
( 3) that the appellant received these goods knowing them
H
to have been stolen.
(1) A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 54.
(2) [1956] S.C.R. 191.
A
B
c
D
E
••
F
G
H
SHEO NATH V. U.P. STATE (Sikri, J.)
799
The choice to be made, however, must depend on the facts proved
in this case.
It is quite clear that all the property which was
stplen by the dacoits was not recovered from the appellant. We
may repeat that clothes, ornaments, cash, etc. were stolen. The
only articles that were found with the appellant were a length o.1
muslin (Exh. 2) and a length of charkhana doriya (Exh. 3). The
appellant is stated to be a cloth merchant and he may well have
acquired these goods as a receiver. It has not been shown that
in the village in which the appellant lived it was known that a
dacoity had taken place and goods had been stolen in the dacoity.
On the facts of this case it seems to us that the only legitimate
presumption to be drawn is that the appellant knew that the goods
were stolen but he did not know that they were stolen in a dacoity.
The appellant, therefore, can only be convicted under s. 411,
I.P.C.
In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhurgiri v. The State(')
(Wanchoo, C.J.,
and Dave, J.). Wanchoo, C.J., after holding that the recovery
of ornaments from Bhurgiri had been established, observed :
"The next question is whether on this evidence
Bhurgiri cal)c be convicted for dacoity.
The recovery
took place five days after the dacoity. It is not impossible that during that period the property might have
passed from the dacoits to a receiver. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that it would not be safe
to coavict Bhurgiri of dacoity on the evidence of t\?s
recovery alone.
It would be more proper to convict
him as a guilty receiver.
Then the question arises whether he should be con-.
victed under section 411 or 412, I.P.C. So far as section 411 is· concerned, he is clearly guilty under that
section.
The presumption under section 114 applies,
and we can safely presume that he is a guilty receiver
of . stolen property particularly when we rmd that the
property was kept in the Bara, and not at his own house.
He must have had reason to believe that it was stoler:
when he received the property, and that is why he left
it in the Bara. But ·we feel that it would not be proper
to convict him under section 412 because that section
requires that the receiver should know or have reaso, .
(I) I.LR. [1954] Raj. 476, 482-83.
••
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
to believe that the property had been \ransferred by the
commission of dacoity.
The prosecution,
in our
,opinion, has to show something more than the mere
possession of stolen goods for a conviction under section 412. If the prosecution is only able to show mere
possession, the proper section to use is 411."
In the result the appeal is allowed and the appellant convicted
under s. 411, I.P.C., instead of s. 396, I.P.C., and sentenced to
:undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal allowed.
.
A
B
c