AYODHYA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

AYODHYA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The appellant was found in possession of a large number of stolen articles soon after the theft, failed to account for such possession, and in the circumstances, the presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act applied, justifying conviction under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ayodhya Singh; Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 August 1972
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
House Breaking, Theft, Possession of Stolen Property, Presumption Under Evidence Act, Misjoinder of Charges
Criminal Law House Breaking Theft Possession of Stolen Property Presumption Under Evidence Act Misjoinder of Charges

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ayodhya Singh

Appellant

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was proper under sections 457 and 380 IPC and not under 411 IPC
  2. 2 Whether recovery and identification of articles was proper
  3. 3 Whether misjoinder of charges has caused prejudice to accused

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was found in possession of a large number of stolen articles soon after the theft, failed to account for such possession, and in the circumstances, the presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act applied, justifying conviction under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentences of Ayodhya Singh and Hira Singh under sections 457 and 380 read with 75 IPC confirmed
  • Recovered articles ordered to be restored to Mahendra Kumar complainant