| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3061 1970 SLD 3061 = 1970 PCRLJ 293 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 599 of 1968, decided on 30th October 1969.
Presented By: Abdul Hakim, J
Serajuddin Ahmed for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 599 of 1968, decided on 30th October 1969.
Presented By: Abdul Hakim, J
Serajuddin Ahmed for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
AINUL HUQ-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Opposite-Party
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 411
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 411-Stolen property -Incriminating articles discovered at pointing out of accused from a place close to his residence and soon after occurrence-Accused not explaining how he came to know of same-Presumption to be drawn that accused planted and possessed such articles-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 114. Stolen articles discovered at pointing out by the accused from a sugar-cane field just close to his house soon after the occurrence and the accused not explaining how he came to know of the same must be presumed to be planted and possessed by the accused. It makes little difference whether the stolen articles are discovered from the house of the accused of have been discovered at his pointing out from a ditch, pond, bush, jungle, sugar-cane field or similar other places which may not be in his direct domain. In the latter cases, if it is established that the articles were so secreted that no body else would have normally had access to them or would have known of them and if in these circumstances, the accused take the witnesses to that place and produce the articles from the place where they are secretly hidden and if no explanation is forthcoming from the accused, then the conclusion must follow that the accused was in possession of these articles giving rise to the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act, if other conditions are fulfilled. Where there was nothing to show that the articles might have been hidden by some body else and that the accused derived the knowledge without himself having concealed them, it may he safely held that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the accused himself. Jiando v. State P L D 1962 Kar. 288; Sher Mohammad v. Emperor A I R 1945 Lah. 27 and Kitab Ali v The State 21 D L R 377 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 141---Charge, detect in-Accused facing trial under S. 411, P.P.C. Charge receiving "knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property--Salient features in evidence having been put to accused crud defence taken by accused in statement under S. 341, showing that he understood charge quite well - No occasion of any prejudice,…