Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Shiv Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 9141 of 2019
Decided On : 07-09-2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 411 – Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – Although recovery of items was made, prosecution must further establish essential ingredient of knowledge of appellant that such goods are stolen property – Reliance solely upon disclosure statement of co-accused will not otherwise be clinching, for conviction under Section 411 of IPC – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import – For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend nature of goods procured by him – Initial possession of goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 411 – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Possession of stolen articles – Conviction and sentence – In view of many discrepancies, seizure evidence is found to be totally unreliable – Prosecution has failed to establish that appellant had knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods – This essential element was not established against appellant to bring home charge under Section 411 of IPC against him – Disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods – Prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for appellant to believe that utensils seized from him were stolen articles – In a case like this, where fundamental evidence is not available and law leans in appellant’s favour, notwithstanding concurrent finding, Court has to exercise corrective jurisdiction as circumstances justify – Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is found to be merited to do justice to appellant who was held to be guilty, without requisite evidence to establish his mens rea in the crime – Appellant acquitted.(Paras 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 12.03.2019 in the Criminal Appeal No. 1261 of 2006 whereunder the appellant’s conviction by trial Court under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, was sustained by the High Court. For such conviction, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of fine payment, additional R.I. for 3 months was ordered.
Findings of Court:
Factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC.
Result : Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted.
Key Points: - The essential element for conviction under Section 411 is mens rea, specifically the "believe" factor of the accused (!) (!) . - Reliance solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused is insufficient to prove the accused's knowledge of stolen property (!) (!) . - The prosecution must establish that the accused knew the seized articles were stolen; mere possession or suspicious sales price is not enough (!) (!) (!) . - Discrepancies and unreliable seizure evidence prevent the prosecution from meeting the burden of proof (!) (!) . - When fundamental evidence is lacking and the law favors the accused, the Court must exercise corrective jurisdiction to acquit (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Gopal Jha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 12.03.2019 in the Criminal Appeal No. 1261 of 2006 whereunder the appellant’s conviction by the trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) was sustained by the High Court. For such conviction, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (for short “R.I.”) for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of fine payment, additional R.I. for 3 months was ordered.
4. In this appeal, limited notice was initially issued on 4.10.2019 only on the quantum of sentence but on 9.5.2022, after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the Court decided to examine the challenge to the conviction itself. Earlier, the appellant was exempted from surrendering by the Court’s order dated 6.9.2019.
5. In the common judgment, the High Court had disposed of three appeals including the appeal filed by one Sadhu Singh alias Vijaybhan Singh Patel who was convicted for murder and other offences and was sentenced, inter-alia, to imprisonment for life. The appellant and one Shatrughan Prasad were not charged in the murder case, but were charged with the offence of receiving stolen property and were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.
6. The prosecution’s case, as revealed from the impugned judgment, is that on 14.2.2003, complainant Abhay Kumar Jain (PW-26) gave a written report to the Town Inspector, City Kotwali, Satna with the information that a truck loaded with household articles operating under the informant’s Excel Transport Agency had proceeded from Indore for delivering goods at Satna. The truck driven by Gurmel Singh after starting from the transport office at Indore on 8.2.2003 had, however, failed to reach its destination at Satna until 12.2.2003. On 14.2.2003, the informant, on learning that the truck was standing on Galla Mandi, Satna, found that the loaded goods from the truck were missing. Initially, an FIR was registered for offence under Section 406 of the IPC in the Crime No. 183/2003 but during police investigation, it came to light that the truck driver was murdered by Sadhu Singh alias Vijaybhan Singh with co-accused Raju alias Rajendra. The loaded goods in the truck were looted and those stolen articles were dishonestly received by the present appellant Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad allegedly knowing the articles to be stolen property. It is the further case of the prosecution that the goods in question were sold at cheaper rate by the two accused who were, accordingly, charged for offences under Section 411 of the IPC.
7. The trial Court convicted the co-accused Sadhu Singh for the offence of murder and related charges. It was also held that the prosecution is able to prove that the appellant Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad had received the articles looted from the truck knowing fully well that those are stolen property, and thereby, both accused committed the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.
8. The learned trial Judge noted that the articles looted from the truck were seized from the possession of the appellant and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad, through the seizure memos (Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-5). Both accused were found selling articles at cheaper rates. It was, therefore, concluded that the accused were aware of the fact that the articles seized from them were stolen property. The appellant was, accordingly, convicted by the trial Court and such conviction under Section 411 of the IPC was affirmed on appeal, by the High Court, through the impugned judgment.
Counsel's Submissions
9. Assailing the legality of the guilty verdict against the appellant, Mr. Lav Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel would submit that the essen
Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's knowledge or strong belief of knowing the articles to have been stolen in the offence of dishonestly rece....
Mere possession of stolen property is insufficient for conviction under Section 411 IPC without proof of the accused's knowledge that the property is stolen.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
(1) Disclosure statement – Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of knowledge or reason to believe that the received property was obtained through dacoity, as stipulated in Section 412 IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
