IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dishonestly receiving stolen property – In order to uphold conviction under Section 411 IPC, it is sine qua non that property in possession of accused is a stolen property – If property is not a stolen property, charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained.
(2) Presumption of fact and burden of proof – In a criminal prosecution, initial burden is always on prosecution to discharge, whereby allegations raised by it against accused person are preliminarily satisfied.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant, takes exception to the judgment dated 7th March, 2024, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] whereby the criminal appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010] preferred by the present appellant and Moulana (accused No. 1) [For short, “accused-Moulana”] was partly allowed.

3. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 5th March, 2010, passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Warangal [Hereinafter, referred to as “Trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2008, had reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years, as awarded by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, ‘IPC’], to one year.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is narrated hereinbelow:

4.1. The complainant, namely K. Vikram, cousin brother of deceased-M. Narsaiah [Hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”], registered an FIR bearing No. 344 of 2005 with Mills Colony Police Station, District Warangal alleging, inter alia, the deceased was in a business of selling paddy to the rice mills at Warangal. In this regard, the deceased had gone to Warangal on 22nd December, 2005 to collect outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 2,92,629/-.

4.2. Around 07:00 P.M., the deceased’s brother-in-law made a phone call to him asking his whereabouts. The deceased informed that he has collected the cash and was then headed to Laxmi Narsimha Rice Mill, Rampur. After an hour, when the phone call was again made by the deceased’s brother-in-law, the person who received the call replied that it was a wrong number and since then the phone has been switched off.

4.3. The complainant and his family made efforts to locate the deceased and when they remained unsuccessful, the present FIR [Exhibit P.35] came to be registered on 24th December, 2005. The police began with their investigation.

4.4. The investigation culminated in a chargesheet, submitted by the police on 16th June, 2007 against accused-Moulana and the present appellant. The chargesheet stated that after working with accused-Moulana, who was a leading paddy broker, for 3 years as Gumasta, the deceased had begun his separate paddy business. In a very short span, the deceased’s business profits skyrocketed and overtook accused-Moulana’s business, who on that account began to incur heavy losses in his business. Recently, the two were involved in an altercation with respect to the price at which the deceased was selling his paddy. Thus, on 22nd December, 2005 when the deceased was visiting Warangal, accused- Moulana saw an opportunity to do away with his business nemesis permanently.

4.5. On the fateful day, after consuming alcohol together, accused-Moulana and the deceased left together for their homes. It was there that accused-Moulana murdered the deceased near Ursa Hillock area by slitting his throat, thereafter, concealing the body in nearby bushes and stealing away his cash, bike and phone. He immediately abandoned the place and reached Warangal Railway Station and left the deceased’s bike parked in the parking area. He boarded a passenger train, disposed of the deceased’s cellphone in the bath-room of the said train and then de-boarded.

4.6. On the following day, i.e. on 23rd December, 2005, with the assistance of the present appellant, who had agreed to help accused-Moulana for a consideration of ?30,000, the dead body was retrieved and wrapped in a polythene sheet. Both started their journey towards Khammam with the wrapped dead body. Their initial plan was to dispose of the dead body in some canal, however, when they reached Appalraopet, they came across a burning pyre. Taking advantage of the fact that there was no one present there, both the accused threw the dead body on the burning pyre to obliterate the final piece of evidence.

4.7. The next day, i.e. 24th December,