Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami
Probin Gondhia, S/o- Late Sali Gondhia – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent, Assam.
2] By way of this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) the petitioner is assailing the judgment & order dated 18.04.2012 passed in criminal appeal No. 46/2006 arising out of G.R. Case No. 2/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, Assam upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) with modification of the sentence passed under Section 380 IPC to the extent of two years instead of 3 years with fine of Rs. 300/- only and in default of payment of fine as imposed under Section 457/380 of IPC, the petitioner/accused shall undergo another Simple Imprisonment for 10 days.
3] The brief of the case is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 02.01.2006 alleging inter alia that the petitioner/accused entered into the house of the informant by breaking open the wall of the house and stole valuable articles therefrom. Accordingly, an F.I.R. was registered as Derg
The court upheld the conviction for theft, emphasizing the presumption of guilt under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which applies when stolen goods are found in the accused's possession.
Conviction under Section 411 IPC requires specific charge and solid proof of seizure; reliance solely on presumption is inadequate.
The presumption under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act requires corroborating evidence to establish the recovery of stolen property, necessitating scrutiny of witness credibility.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
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.
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.
For conviction under Section 411 IPC, prosecution must prove accused's possession of stolen property and knowledge of theft, beyond reasonable doubt.
Possession of stolen goods shortly after theft creates a presumption of guilt, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
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
