Possession of stolen property raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act; the accused must provide credible explanation to avoid conviction.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed against the judgment dated 22.03.2014 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2014.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ upheld the judgment dated 21.12.2012 and order on sentence dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months.

3. Briefly stated, on 01.04.2004, FIR No. 126/2004 was registered at Police Station Anand Vihar on a complaint given by one Kusum Verma for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the IPC regarding theft of Nokia 8310 mobile phone belonging to the then Presiding Officer, MACT Court, Karkardooma Court from the Chamber attached with Court No. 4. During the course of investigation, the details of the SIM used in the said mobile phone was obtained and the IMEI number of the stolen mobile phone was also found.

4. Thereafter, the phone was kept under surveillance and on 07.05.2004, the report was received from Airtel Company that the said mobile phone was used on a different mobile number from 02.04.2004 – 07.04.2004 and the user of the said mobile phone was found to be Mahendra Singh and Surinder Pal Singh. On enquiry, the said Surinder Pal Singh stated that the above mobile phone was given to him by the petitioner on 01.04.2004 for checking the phone which was returned to the petitioner after using for 3-4 days. The petitioner was thereafter arrested on 15.05.2004 and the mobile phone was also recovered from his possession. Consequently, FIR No. 126/2004 was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 380 /411 of the IPC .

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ upheld the judgment on conviction dated 21.12.2012 and order on sentence dated 22.12.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The learned ASJ noted that the petitioner only refuted the allegations levelled against him in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC and stated that nothing was recovered from him. It was noted that the mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

6. The learned ASJ noted that while the petitioner had taken the plea that he had purchased the said mobile phone from one Sunil Kumar for a sum of Rs.1,000/-, the same could not be substantiated. It was further noted that the said plea was not taken by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. It was noted that the Call Records reflected that another sim card was used in the said mobile phone from 02.04.2004 to 06.04.2004. It was further noted that sim card belonged to the father of PW5 and as per the testimony of PW5, the said phone was given to them by the petitioner for checking the condition of the battery and that as soon as PW5 and his father learnt that the phone was a stolen article, the same was returned to the petitioner. It was noted that the stolen mob