IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SRINIVAS, J.
K. Dhanalakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. By Its PP Hyd. Thrgh. Insp. - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1580 of 2008
Decided On : 08-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 411 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision against conviction and sentence for theft - Accused No.2 convicted for possession of stolen property - Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through corroborated testimonies and confessions - No manifest error found in lower courts' findings. (Paras 8, 12, 17, 22)
(B) Criminal Revision - Scope of revisional powers - Revisional court does not re-examine evidence in detail unless there is a manifest error or perversity in findings. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner/accused No.2 was convicted for possessing stolen property from various temple thefts, with the conviction based on the confession of her son (accused No.1) and corroborated witness testimonies.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and appellate court found sufficient evidence to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC, affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was any manifest error of law or miscarriage of justice in the findings of the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction, stating that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the revisional court should not interfere without evidence of error.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed in part, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000/- instead of imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
Assailing the judgment dated 13.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chittoor, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the accused No.2 by the judgment dated 13.02.2006 in C.C.No.173 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chittoor, for the offences under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused No.2 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 23.10.2008 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2162 of 2008.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 02.02.2005 some unknown offenders entered into the Agastheeswaraswamy Temple by scaling over the wall and broke open the Hundies kept in-front of Vigneswaraswamy Temple and Subramanya Swamy Temple and committed theft of cash of Rs.400/-. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.27 of 2007 was registered by CCS Chittoor Police under Section 457 and 380 or 411 and Section 457 and 380 r/w.511 of IPC and investigated into.
ii). Four months prior to 25.03.2005, some unknown offenders entered into Omshakthi Mariyamma Temple situated on the tank bund of Ganganeri Cheruvu on Chittoor-Vellore road and attempted to commit theft of cash from Hundi, but on hearing the shouting of the public, they left the place. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.2, a case in Cr.No.49 of 2005 was registered by the police under Section 379 r/w.511 of IPC and investigated into.
iii). Two months prior to 25.03.2005, some unknown offenders committed theft of cash of Rs.750/- by break open the Hundi of Chowdeswari Temple and escaped with booty. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.3, a case in Cr.No.50 of 2005 registered by police for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and investigated into.
iv). On 01.04.2005 at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.7 Inspector of Police, got arrested accused No.1 in the presence of mediators, he confessed about the above offences committed by him, produced the stolen properties from his house as well bushes in front of his house and some portion of property were pledged by his mother accused No.2. P.W.7 seized the said property under the cover of Ex.P.4 mediators report.
v). On the same day at about 11.00 a.m., accused No.1 lead the police to the house Dr.No.4-351, Godugumur, Chittoor Municipal Limits, Chittoor, shown accused No.2, then she (accused No.2) admitted about the possession of stolen properties brought by her son (accused No.1), about her pledging three items of gold jewels to a pawn broker and she produced some of the stolen properties concerning to the above crimes. Then, P.W.7 seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.5 mediators report. In pursuance of their confession, police also seized some of the stolen property from the bushes at a distance of 40 feet to the northern side of their house under the cover of Ex.P.6 mediators report. Then both the accused lead the police to pawn broker, the said pawn broker handed over the pledged gold jewels and they seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.7 mediators report.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.173 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chittoor, after full-fledged trial, found the accused Nos.1 and 2 are guilty of the offence under Section 411 of IPC, vide judgment dated 13.02.2006, sentenced accused No.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month as well sentenced accused No.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one month.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 pr
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....
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
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 is sufficient for conviction under IPC Section 411, provided the accused knew it was stolen.
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.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction under Section 411 of IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.