Back
V. SRINIVAS
Gubbala Srinu At Srinivasa Rao, West Godavari – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. ,Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyd – Respondent
ORDER :
V.Srinivas, J.
The petitioner/accused No.1 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.104, 105 and 106 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.19, 18 and 20 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which confirm the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.380, 379 and 381 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.
The petitioner/accused No.2 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.1586, 1587 and 1589 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which were confirmed by the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.379, 380 and 381 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakol.
The petitioner/accused No.3 preferred Criminal Revision Case Nos.1590, 655, 1588 and 644 of 2011 against the judgments dated 10.01.2011 passed in Crl.A.Nos.21, 24, 22 and 25 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Narsapur, which confirm the judgments dated 09.01.2009 in C.C.Nos.386, 380
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
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.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
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.
The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act requires corroborating evidence to establish the recovery of stolen property, necessitating scrutiny of witness credibility.
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.
For conviction under Section 411 IPC, prosecution must prove accused's possession of stolen property and knowledge of theft, beyond reasonable doubt.
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
