Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 439

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----   ----S. 439-Concurrent findings of fact of Courts below---(Recovery of 33 tolas of stolen gold)-Upset by High Court, being of view that short sentences (one year) passed by trial Magistrate and (6 months) by Addi tional Sessions Judge in appeal, themselves raised doubt as to the satisfactory nature of evidence about recovery-Benefit of doubt should lead to acquittal and not conviction of accused though with a short sentence-(Accused acquitted)-(Stolen property, however, ordered to be restored to complainant)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 517. JUDGMENT   The petitioner is alleged to have robbed the complainant of 33 tolas of gold which were tied in a handkerchief by snatching the bundle from the hand of the complainant while the two of them were proceeding together at dusk through a street which is not particularly populated. It is alleged that the stolen property was recovered from the petitioner soon afterwards. The learned Magistrate believing the evidence of recovery recorded a convic tion under section 411, P. P. C. and sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He did not convict the petitioner for robbery not being satisfied with the evidence in support of it.   The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in appeal, upheld that conviction but reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment without giving any reason for doing so except that he felt like reducing it.   The first information report is a narrative of a robbery by a person who was notpreviously known to the complainant. It was mentioned in it that the victim of the robbery, namely, the complainant, was able to snatch a bag from the hand of the culprit before he ran away. It was further mentioned in it that in the bag that was snatched from the culprit there was a piece of paper on which two names figured-one being the name of the petitioner and other the name of a person who was interrogated during the investigation as a suspect but later pro duced as a witness. From the first information report, it seems clear that whoever was making it, was genuinely complaining of the loss of property in…