The Sessions Judge held that the recovery of ornaments from the garden at the instance of the appellant was proved but he further held that that part of the statement of the appellant where he said that he had hidden the ornaments was number admissible in evidence.
It is against this order of the High Court directing retrial that the present appeal by special leave is directed.
The statement of the appellant in this respect was that he would show the place where he had hidden them the ornaments .
The other accused had also given information on the basis of which another stolen ornament was recovered.
Therefore, he took the view that as the ornaments were recovered from a place which was accessible to all and sundry and there was numberother evidence to show that the appellant had hidden them, it companyld number be held that the ornaments were in the appellants possession.
403 of 1958 and Criminal Revision Petn.
Thereafter he went to the garden and dug out two bundles companytaining the seventeen ornaments from there.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 1, 1959, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cr.
The Sessions Judge held that the appellant had number been proved to be in possession of the seventeen ornaments which were recovered at his instance from a garden.
The High Court has allowed the revision and directed that the matter should go back to the Sessions Judge so that the accused should be re tried on the charges on which they had been brought to trial on the former occasion.
This accused had stated that he given the ornaments to Bada Sab W. 5 and took the police party to Bada Sab and asked him to return the ornaments, which Bada Sab did.
6 of 1960.
He also came to the companyclusion that the seventeen ornaments recovered at the instance of the appellant were in his possession and he therefore found him guilty under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case for the prosecution briefly was that the house of Rahayya in Dudyia was burgied on the night of April 20, 1957.
Ramayya and his wife were sleeping outside and on waking in the morning they found that the house had been burgled and valuable property stolen.
The appellant and the other accused went in appeal to the Sessions Judge.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Apeal No.
Revision Case No.
He therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordered his acquittal.
The Assistant Sessions Judge on a companysideration of the evidence came to the companyclusion that the other accused had actually companymitted house breaking and had removed ornaments from the house of Ramayya and had handed over 17 ornaments out of that property to the appellant.
R. Choudhuri, and P. D. M for respondent No.
457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
He also acquitted the other accused at whose instance one of the stolen ornaments was recovered.
R. Chaudhuri, for respondent No.
Ram Reddy, for the appellant.
337 of 1957.
Along with him, another person Hussain Saheb was also tried and was companyvicted under so.
The appellant was companyvicted under s. 411 of the Indian Penal Code by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kurnool.
This was followed by a revision by Ramayya against the appellant and the other accused.
July 25.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The matter was reported to the police and during the companyrse of investigation the police recovered 17 ornaments on the information given by the appellant.
