1962 (10) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld under Section 379 IPC. No merit in arguments on confession & theft offence.

PYARE LAL BHARGAVA Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found no merit in ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of the confession under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.2. Reliance on a retracted confession.3. Whether the offence of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of the Confession under Section 24 of the Evidence Act:The first issue revolves around whether the confession made by the appellant before Shri P. N. Singhal, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Matsya Government, was voluntary and therefore admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Section 24 stipulates that a confession is irrelevant in criminal proceedings if it appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority, sufficient to give the accused grounds to suppose that he would gain an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.In this case, the appellant argued that the Chief Secretary's statement that he would hand over the inquiry to the police if the truth did not come out constituted a threat. However, the court noted that the term 'appears' in Section 24 implies a lesser degree of probability than proof. The court must form a prima facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances. The three lower courts concurrently held that the Chief Secretary's statement did not appear to be a threat within the meaning of Section 24. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the statement was a general one that any person who lost property and could not find the culprit might make. Thus, the confession was deemed voluntary and admissible.2. Reliance on a Retracted Confession:The second issue addresses whether the High Court erred in relying on the retracted confession of the appellant. A retracted confession can form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made. While it is not a rule of law, it is a rule of prudence that a conviction should not be based on a retracted confession without corroboration.The High Court found corroboration in the evidence of Bishan Swaroop (P.W. 7) and the entry in the Dak Book (Ex. PA. 4). The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that the High Court had adhered to the principles of looking for corroboration and found it in material particulars. Therefore, the reliance on the retracted confession was justified.3. Whether the Offence of Theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was Made Out:The third issue concerns whether the facts found constituted the offence of theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 378 defines theft as taking any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, with the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.The appellant was found to have taken a file from the Chief Engineer's Office without authorization and handed it over to Ram Kumar Ram. The appellant argued that he was in possession of the file and had no dishonest intention as he returned it the next day. However, the court held that the file was in the possession of the Chief Engineer, and the appellant, as a Superintendent, was not in legal possession of it. The temporary removal of the file constituted wrongful loss to the department, even if the appellant intended to return it. The court cited illustrations (b) and (l) of Section 378 to support the view that temporary deprivation of property constitutes theft.Thus, the court concluded that the facts clearly brought the case within the ambit of Section 378, and the conviction for theft under Section 379 was upheld.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The court found no merit in the arguments regarding the inadmissibility of the confession, the reliance on the retracted confession, or the contention that the offence of theft was not made out.