Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1)2 Nos of CST plates marked as M.O.3 series;

2)8 nos of. AC bearing chairs marked as M.O. 4 series;

3)5 Nos of AC Chairs were marked as M.O.5 series;

4)16 Nos of screws marked as M.O.6 series;

5) 7 Nos of steel case marked as M.O.7 series;

6) One fish plate marked as M.O.8 series;

and

7) 6 break boxes marked as M.O.9 series.

The above said properties were recovered in the presence of the said witnesses under search list marked as EX.P4. The said goods were identified to be railway properties and the respondent/accused was not able to account for the possession of the same. The respondent/accused also gave a confession statement in the presence of the above said witnesses and the same was recorded by P.W.1 . Ex.P5 is the said confession statement of the respondent recorded by P.W.1. The above said Durai and the respondent(Paramasivam) were arrested and produced before the court and thereupon, they were remanded to judicial custody. PW1 continued his enquiry, examined the witnesses, got the reports of P.W.2- Mr.Shanmugam, the Chief Train Inspector and P.W.3  Mr.Chandrasekar, the Permanent Railway Inspector to the effect that the articles recovered from Durai and Paramasivam (the respondent herein) were railway properties. P.W.1 also recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained certificates from the Commissioner of Arakkonam Municipality regarding the ownership of the premises at Door No. 95, Gandhi Road and to the effect that no license had been granted either to the respondent or to any body else to use the said premises for commercial purpose. P.W.1, after completing the enquiry, was satisfied that the properties recovered from Durai and Paramasivam (respondent herein/accused) were railway properties either stolen or acquired unauthorisedly by the said persons and hence submitted a complaint on the file of the trial court against the above said Durai and Paramasivam(respondent/Accused) alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.

14. Clear evidence has been adduced though P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 to the effect that after the confession statement of Durai was recorded, they went along with the Railway Protection Force people to the second place of occurrence at No. 95, Gandhi Road, Palanipettai, Arakkonam, where the above said Durai identified the scrap iron shop run by the respondent herein and the respondent herein to be the owner of the said shop. Clear evidence has also been adduced through them to the effect that the said Durai informed the Railway Protection Force people that he used to sell the railway properties to the respondent herein whereupon a search was made by P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.6 Mahoharan and Rajendran as a result of which, Ex.P4- search list was prepared and M.Os. 3 to 9 were recovered. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 , 5 and 6 are cogent and without any material contradiction. The Respondent (original accused No.2) has also affixed his signature in Ex.P4- search list and admitted that such a search was made and M.Os 3 to 9 were recovered. Clear evidence has also been adduced through P.W.1, 5 and 6 to the effect that, after search and recovery, the respondent was taken to the office of the Railway Protection Force where he volunteered to give a confession statement and that the same was recorded by P.W.1 and attested by P.W.6 and Rajendran. No explanation is forth coming as to how the respondent put his signatures in the search list and the confession statement marked as Ex.P4 and P5 respectively. He has clearly admitted that no article belonging to him was recovered, though the articles M.Os.3 to 9 were recovered from his shop. Clear admission has also been made in the said statement that he used to purchase railway properties unauthorisedly brought to his shop by Durai and sell it to intending purchasers for profit. In this regard, there is a small discrepancy in the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant/complainant. P.W.1 stated that before coming to the place of the respondent, he prepared an advance intimation and sent it to the magistrate and he had identified Ex.P3 to be an advance intimation. Pointing out the fact that all the M.O.s. 3 to 9 have been noted in Ex.P3, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the alleged search and recovery were stage-managed as the said M.Os. had been mentioned in EX.P3 itself. Of course such contention can be accepted provided Ex.P3 happened to be a advance intimation. The mistake seems to have been committed by P.W.1 in identifying the Ex.P3 to be the advance intimation. In fact Ex.P3 is the occurrence report prepared after arresting the accused persons and after making recoveries and recording of the statements of the accused persons. The entire sequence of events starting from 4.15 a.m till the sending of the accused persons for remand after 8.30 a.m. has been narrated in Ex.P3. Therefore it is not correct to state that Ex.P.3 is advance intimation.

23. The contradictions pointed out by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for disbelieving the prosecution witnesses are in fact insignificant and caused because of fading memory of witnesses deposing after the lapse of several years after the date of occurrence. It should be noticed that though P.W.5 happened to be an attestor of the Mahazar for the recovery of M.Os. 1 and 2 from Durai, he has not attested either the confession statement of Durai marked as Ex.P2 or the confession statement of respondent herein marked as E.P5. Even the search list has not been attested by him. P.W.6 and one Rajendran were the attestors of these documents. PW5 was examined as a person who was present in the scene of occurrence. The statement made by him in his evidence that he was not aware of the place wherein the confession of the respondent was recorded and whether he had signed the said confession statement is not enough to disbelieve the case of the prosecution that the respondent gave such a confession statement when clear evidence has been adduced through P.W.1 and P.W.6. So also the other discrepancy pointed out by the learned Principal Sessions Judge viz the admission made by P.W.6 that though he signed a written document he was not aware of its contents will not be enough to disbelieve the prosecution version. As pointed out supra that P.W.6 is an illiterate Coolie. He has given clear evidence regarding seizure of M.Os. 1 and 2 from Durai, act of Durai in identifying the respondent's shop and the respondent and the recovery of M.Os. 3 to 9 from the shop of the respondent herein. He has also clearly accounted for how the confession statement of the respondent was recorded. He has given clear evidence regarding his attestation of the said confession statement. When such evidence has been adduced on the side of the Appellant/complainant, the minor discrepancies found here and there were picked up and pointed out by the learned Principal Sessions Judge dealing with the Appeal for coming to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent herein /accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said approach made by the Pincipal Sessions Judge and of course the conclusion arrived at by the learned Principal Sessions judge are no doubt defective and infirm. The finding of the learned Principal sessions Judge can even be stated to be perverse. The well considered judgment of the Trial Court should not have been disturbed.