Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Gobinda and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR17All576
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentGobinda and anr.
Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 411 - evidence--pointing out stolen property concealed in a place not under the accused's control. - .....of the indian penal code. he pointed out a place in the field of another man in which some of the stolen articles were found. there is no other evidence against him the mere fact that a person points out a place where stolen property is concealed, if that place is not in his own house or in his own field, but is in the field of another man, is not sufficient, in our opinion, to entitle the court to find that the person who pointed out the stolen article had received it, or retained it, knowing it to be. stolen. there must, to support a conviction in such a case, be some evidence which suggests that the accused himself concealed the article in the place where it was found. it is not sufficient for a conviction that the accused pointed out the stolen article, if it is left doubtful.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Banerji, J.

1. Some articles were stolen on the 23rd of December 1894. Some of these were found in the house of Dhankua and come in his field He gave no reasonable explanation how he came to be in possession of the articles found in his house. He was rightly convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, and we dismiss his appeal.

2. Gobinda has been convicted of an offence made punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He pointed out a place in the field of another man in which some of the stolen articles were found. There is no other evidence against him The mere fact that a person points out a place where stolen property is concealed, if that place is not in his own house or in his own field, but is in the field of another man, is not sufficient, in our opinion, to entitle the Court to find that the person who pointed out the stolen article had received it, or retained it, knowing it to be. stolen. There must, to support a conviction in such a case, be some evidence which suggests that the accused himself concealed the article in the place where it was found. It is not sufficient for a conviction that the accused pointed out the stolen article, if it is left doubtful whether the accused or some other person concealed the stolen, article, or that the accused obtained in some other way information that the stolen property was in the place where it was found. In Gobinda's case we allow his appeal, and, setting aside his conviction and sentence, we acquit him of the charge of which he has been convicted and direct that he be at once released.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //