Back
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Syed Nagul Meera, S/o. Zakriya – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. , Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
1. This revision petition is moved against the concurrent judgments of the conviction and sentences passed against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2008 dated 30.06.2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, confirming the judgment passed by the learned VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in C.C.NO.711 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , wherein, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months each.
2. The revisionists were the Accused Nos.1 & 2 and the respondents herein was the Sub-Inspector of Police represented by Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Motor vehicle of P.W.1/(M.O.1) was stolen on 08.07.2007 at about 4.00 P.M. from the parking area of the RTC Bus stand of Guntur District. It was recovered from the possession of the accused on 11.07.2007 at about 6:00 A.M by P.W.3 near Mani Hotel Center, Guntur. The accused failed to offer satisfactory reason for t
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction under Section 411 of IPC.
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.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
Possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act; the accused must provide credible explanation to avoid conviction.
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.
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
