The essentials of Section 411 IPC are threefold: first, the stolen property was in the possession of the accused; second, some other person had possession of the property prior to the accused; third, the accused had knowledge or reason to believe that the property was stolen.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Both the appeals have been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment of conviction dated 22.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 29.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court in SC 88/2010 arising out of FIR No. 49/2010 PS Geeta Colony by which the appellant in Crl.A. 696/2012 Dinesh Kumar Mathur (hereinafter referred to as “appellant Dinesh”) has been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of six months; and the appellant in Crl.A. 180/2013 Raj Kumar @ Raju (hereinafter referred to as “appellant Raju”) has been convicted under Section 302/392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2010, following information was received at Police Station Geeta Colony vide DD No. 20-A: “Gali No. 1, Shiv Market Khureji Petrol Pump ke saamne ek old lady jiske pair bandhein hain va ghar ka samaan loot ke le gaye” (infront of Street No.1, Shiv Market Khureji Petrol Pump, an old lady’s legs have been tied and household items have been looted.) ASI Satvinder Singh was informed about the call. He proceeded to the spot with Ct. Abodh. The SHO and PSI Niranjan Pathak were also informed about the call. They also proceeded to the spot and on reaching there, they found that an old lady named Nirmal Arora (“deceased”) was lying on the bed with injuries from a sharp weapon on her face, neck and feet. Lot of blood was lying on the bed. The bed sheet, pillows and shawl were soaked in blood. The feet of the deceased were lying tied with wire of the press. Crime team was called at the spot. Chance prints were lifted. The body was sent to the mortuary. Statement of Som Nath Arora, husband of the deceased, was recorded wherein he stated that on 18.02.2010, he left the house for his office at about 9:30 AM and his wife was alone in the house. At about 2:20 PM, he was informed by his sister in-law Madhu Dang that she was informed by the maid that his wife was bleeding on the bed. Within 15-20 minutes, he reached at his house where he found his wife lying dead. Rs.10,000/- lying in the drawer of the TV cabin were also missing.

3. On the statement of the husband of the deceased, FIR was registered under Sections 397/302 IPC. After post-mortem, the body of deceased was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased. In his supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Som Nath Arora stated that mobile phone, Rs.10,000/- and gold chain of his wife were also missing from the house. During investigation, police collected the CDR of the mobile phone. It was found that the said mobile was being used with number 9871240643 which was in the name of appellant Dinesh Kumar. Appellant Dinesh was arrested under Section 412 IPC. The mobile phone was recovered from him. Appellant Dinesh Kumar gave disclosure statement that he had purchased the said mobile phone for Rs. 500/- from Raj Kumar @ Raju. On the pointing out of appellant Dinesh, appellant Raju was arrested. There was injury on the small finger of right hand of appellant Raju. A new mobile phone make Nokia 1209 was recovered from his right pocket regarding which he stated that he had purchased the said phone from the looted money. Rs.1,200/- out of the looted amount were also recovered from his possession. Another mobile phone “Classic Reliance” and a packet of tablet Nitrabet-103 were also recovered from appellant Raju. On interrogation, appellant Raju gave disclosure statement. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, appellant Raju got recovered his blood-stained jacket and pant and blood-stained d