BHOPAT SINGH KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the conviction and sentence of the appellant under S. 379, Indian Penal Code, have been upheld.

(2.) The first information report resulting in the taking of proceedings against the appellant was lodged at 11.15 a.m. on June 12, 1966 by Mansukhlal Vallabhdas at V. P. Road police station, Bombay. According to him a theft of 4 diamonds nose studs valued at Rs. 900/- had been committed by picking his pocket while he was travelling in a bus on that very morning. He boarded the bus at Thakurdwar and had to stand on the footboard because there was no sitting accommodation available inside. The appellant and two other persons stood near him on the same footboard. When he got down at Prarthana Samaj Bus Stop he felt that the pocket of his underwear in which he had kept the packet containing the four diamond nose studs had been cut and the packet was missing. He got down from the bus and walked back in the direction of Thakurdwar. He saw another bus plying on route No. 126 passing towards Prathana Samaj in which he noted that the appellant was travelling. He got down and boarded that bus and repeatedly asked that conductor to stop the bus and take him to the police station but his request was not complied with. The appellant offered to accompany him to the police station. Both of them got down. The appellant admitted having stolen the diamond studs but said that he had passed them on to his accomplices. He requested the complainant to accompany him to Bapti Road where the Lost Property Officer was situate. The complainant, however, asked the taxi driver to take the taxi to V. P. Road police station. As soon as the appellant and the complainant got down from the taxi the former gave him a slip and boarded a bus and disappeared. He then went to Maharbauri Police Station and lodged the complaint.

(3.) After the arrest of the appellant on June 15, 1966 the appellant is alleged to have told the police that he had deposited the stolen diamond studs in the Lost Property Office. He took the police to that office and the studs were produced by the clerk in-charge. These diamonds were later on got identified at the instance of the police by the complainant.