Back
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
Hemant Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.—Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Rosera, Samastipur in Cr Appeal No 47 of 2019 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge II rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment passed by learned SDJM, Rosera in Trial No 1015 of 2019/GR No 7 of 2006 arising out of Bibhutipur PS Case No 3 of 2006 whereby the learned SDJM convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 414 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs 5,000/-.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, PW 1 Avinash Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge of Bibhutipur PS on 04.01.2006, on the basis of information, searched the house of the petitioner. On being searched, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No BR9C/5795 has been recovered from his possession. One photostat copy of the registration certificate was shown by the petitioner. According to the said certificate, owner of the said vehicle is shown as Dharmendra Deo, resident of Village – Mabbi, PS – Rosera. It was informed by the petitioner that the said motorcycle was purchased by him from
The court upheld the conviction for forgery and conspiracy under IPC sections, emphasizing that the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the petitioners' involvement in the crimes.
The central legal point established is that conscious possession of stolen articles and vehicles can lead to conviction under Section 411 of the IPC.
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
Possession of stolen goods, without satisfactory explanation, establishes guilt under Section 379 IPC.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 413 of the IPC based on the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery memos, and established the appellant's habitual offender s....
(1) No material inconsistency in the testimony of the police officials.(2) Appellant’s defence that he had been falsely implicated is without any substance.
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
