Pandrang Row, J.@mdashThis is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Anantapur in respect of a verdict of not guilty returned by the jury on
a charge of theft and in the alternative of retention of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. The case was a very simple one. The only evidence
incriminating the accused was that certain articles were produced by the accused before the Police Officer, who investigated the case, and another
witness. The ownership of the articles was proved by the persons in whose houses the thefts had taken place. The suggestion in the cross-
examination of the Police Officer was that the articles said to have been produced by the accused were really handed over to the Police by the
complainants themselves, and it is possible that the jury thought there was some truth in this suggestion. The jury''s verdict was unanimous, and it
cannot be said that simply because there is no reason to be found in the record for disbelieving the evidence of these two witnesses the jury''s
verdict must be regarded as perverse or unreasonable. The jury were entitled to form and express their own opinion as regards the reliability of
these two witnesses, and one cannot exclude the possibility that they might have formed an adverse opinion on account of the demeanour of the
witnesses or some other cause which does not find any mention in the record. It can hardly be urged that the jury was not competent to decide the
simple question whether the evidence regarding the production of these properties by the accused was reliable or not, and the mere fact that the
opinion is one with which the learned trial Judge does not agree, does not make the jury''s opinion a perverse or unreasonable one. Apart from
this, there is the fact that the trial itself was not according to law because the charges were wrongly joined. Two distinct offences of theft in two
separate houses were tried at one and the same trial, and the alternative charges u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, were also in respect of each of these
transactions. In other words, there were two charges u/s 411 in respect of the properties stolen from the two houses. We see no reason to accept
the reference. The records are therefore returned to the Sessions Judge. The accused is acquitted and he should be set at liberty unless liable to be
detained for some other cause.
