IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SRINIVAS, J.
K. Dhanalakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Rep. by Its P.P. Hyd. Thgh. Insp. of Police - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1584 of 2008
Decided On : 08-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 411 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Revision against conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property - The petitioner/accused No.2 was convicted for possessing stolen property, which was affirmed by the appellate court, but the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.9,000/- instead of imprisonment - The court found no manifest error in the lower courts' findings and upheld the conviction, emphasizing the knowledge of the accused regarding the stolen nature of the property. (Paras 22, 23)
(B) Criminal Revision - Scope of review - The revisional court does not re-examine evidence in detail unless there is a manifest error or perversity in the findings of the lower courts. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for possessing stolen items, including a TV and gold jewelry, which were recovered based on the confession of her son, accused No.1. The trial court sentenced her to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, which was partly reduced by the appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.9,000/- in lieu of imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was any manifest error in the findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding the conviction of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts were not to be disturbed without clear evidence of error.
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. theft of property (Para 3) |
| 2. conviction and sentence (Para 4) |
| 3. appeal filed (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. defense arguments (Para 9) |
| 5. prosecution arguments (Para 10) |
| 6. evidence review (Para 11) |
| 7. testimony credibility (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. concurrent findings (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Assailing the judgment dated 13.10.2008 in Crl.A.No.41 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.172 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.2166 of 2008.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 05.09.2004 some unknown offenders committed theft of LG Cine Plus Colour TV, Weston VCD and gold chain with corals weighing six sovereigns worth of Rs.40,000/-. Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.140 of 2004 was registered by CCS Chittoor Police under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and investigated into.
ii). On 12.10.2004, some unknown offenders entered into the house of P.W.2 and committed theft of Sony Colour TV worth of Rs.15,000/-. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.2, a case in Cr.No.158 of 2004 was registered by the police under Section 457 and 380 of IPC and investigated into.
iii). On 24.10.2004, some unknown offenders entered into Indian Bank, Greamspet, Chittoor by broke open the lock of main iron gate and wooden doors, entered into bank and there was chance to go to cash room. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.3, a case in Cr.No.160 of 2004 was registered by the police under Section 457 and380 of IPC and investigated into.
iv). On 01.04.2005 at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.9 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.9 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.9 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.9 laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.172 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. A
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.
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 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.
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction under Section 411 of IPC.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Possession of stolen property shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, requiring the accused to explain such possession.
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.
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.