Back
V. SRINIVAS
Korukonda Satish – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. By PP High Court Hyderabad – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Srinivas, J.
Assailing the judgment dated 30.12.2011 in Crl.A.No.314 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated 27.9.2010 in C.C.No.183 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry, for the offences under section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.626 of 2012.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that :
Possession of stolen property is sufficient for conviction under IPC Section 411, provided the accused knew it was stolen.
The court upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 411 IPC, establishing that possession of stolen property with knowledge constitutes guilt, and revisional powers do not allow re-examination of evidenc....
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
Recovery alone is not sufficient to establish guilt in a case relying on circumstantial evidence.
The court upheld the conviction for causing injuries but modified the sentence to a fine, considering the elapsed time and nature of injuries.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
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
