1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner was convicted under section 411 of the Penal Code for being in possession of a stolen heifer, for which he could not render any satisfactory explanation.
2. He was caught moving with the heifer at about 2-00 a.m. At night. His companions escaped but the petitioner was caught on the spot with the heifer by the police patrol party. It is said that he could not offer any satisfactory explanation for --the possession of the heifer. He was arrested and taken to the police station.
3. At about 9-00 a.m. The following morning one, Bahadur Ali Pramanik, came to the police station to lodge an F. .I. R. With regard to the theft of his heifer but at the police station he saw his heifer and recognized it. He then lodged his first information report.
4. The petitioner was sent up for trial. At the trial he set up the defence that the heifer belonged to him. He stated that he had taken it to the market for sale the previous day but as it could not be disposed of he was bringing it home when he was caught by the patrol party. In support of his claim he examined also two witnesses. The trial Court disbelieved the defence witnesses and accepted the prosecution case that the heifer belonged to Bahadur Ali Pramanik and that it was stolen from his cow-shed on the night of the 19th/20th of Jaistha 1374 B. S. The evidence of the defence witnesses was found. To be so discrepant that the trial Court had actually recorded in its judgment that "they came tutored" and were "speaking lies." Apart from this, the Court also was of the view that the defence story was belied by the following circumstances :----
(1) The petitioner could not produce any certificate of owner--ship from the Chairman of the Union Council, although in those days it was, on the admission of one of the defence witnesses himself, customary for people wishing to sell cattle to obtain a certificate of ownership from the Chairman of the local Union Council.
(2) The unearthly hour of the night at which tire petitioner was caught with the calf.
(3) The heifer had been identified at the police station by its owner, Bahadur Ali Pramanik (P. W. 1), whose evidence had been corroborated with regard to the ownership of the heifer.
5. The petitioner was accordingly convicted. His conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge of Pabna on appeal and the High Court rejected his petition in revision. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
6. The only point urged in support of this petition is that the High Court failed to notice that the lower appellate Court had misdirected itself on the question of the ownership of the heifer by not coming to an independent finding of its own on this point after examination of the evidence.
7. It is true that the lower appellate Court has not recapitulated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and then said that on this evidence the ownership of the heifer had been established by the prosecution, but in effect it has recorded its finding by saying that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have proved that the heifer in question belonged to Bahadur Ali Pramanik, P. W.
1. This is sufficient to show that the appellate Court also was not accepting the defence story and was agreeing with the trial Court with regard to its finding as to the ownership of the heifer.
8. We see no substance in this contention which is, in any event, a question purely relating to the appreciation of evidence. The High Court was quite right in saying that in revision it saw reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts e below which were based on abundant evidence. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.