Possession of stolen goods can uphold a conviction under Section 411, provided mens rea is established, even without direct evidence of theft.

ORDER :

Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.

The two Criminal Revision Cases are heard and disposed of by this Common Order inasmuch as the Calendar Case against the three petitioners is one and the same.

2. Crl.R.C.Nos.2063 and 2036 of 2009 have been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging judgment dated 24.11.2009 in Crl.A.Nos.106 and 137 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, altering the conviction from Section 379 of ‘the IPC.,’ to Section 411 of ‘the IPC’, while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment and fine, imposed by the judgment dated 17.03.2009 in C.C.No.65 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby and whereunder the petitioners in the two Criminal Revisions Cases were found guilty for offence under Section 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C’) and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.

3. Sri. Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel, representing Sri. Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, and Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsels for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.2036 of 2009 submit that there was no direct evidence to show that the petitioners have stolen the wire bundles; there was a time gap of one month in between the date of alleged offence and the arrest of the petitioners; P.W.1 did not give any descriptive particulars of the names of the accused in the complaint; no reliance can be placed on the alleged recovery; and there was no identification parade conducted with respect to the property, and urged to allow the Criminal Revision Cases.

4. Sri Ch. Ravindra Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 9 SCC 676 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the failure of the prosecution in establishing mens rea or knowledge that the property in question was stolen property. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was an admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that the stolen property would be available in the market. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be attributed with the mala fide intention of possessing the stolen property and urged to exonerate the petitioners from the impugned judgment.

5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Accused Nos.1 and 3 have been, indeed, underwent incarceration as remand trial prisoners and post- conviction prisoners for considerable length of time. As there are no adverse antecedents against the petitioners, it is urged that they may be sentenced to the imprisonment to which they have already undergone as the fine amount was also paid by them.

6. Per Contra Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, argued that the judgment of the learned Appellate Court is well-thought and there was no misreading of evidence, no flagrant miscarriage of justice and no perverse finding. The petitioners suffered concurrent convictions, and appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in the revision cases and urged to dismiss the revision cases while requesting to consider the plea of the petitioners with regard to the quantum of sentence that could be imposed on the petitioners.

7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the judgments