Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
RAVI CHIRANIA
Madan Lal S/o Mohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI CHIRANIA, J.
1 By way of filing the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the judgment dated 02.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No1, Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal No.90/2007 whereby the judgment dated 14.11.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara in Cr. Original Case No.76/2001 was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 14.11.2007 as below:
| Conviction for offences under Sections: | Sentences |
| 411 IPC | 6 months’ R.I and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 months’ S.I |
2 The genesis of the case lies in a FIR No. 280/2000 lodged by complainant Amba Lal at Police Station Pratap Nagar. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.06.2000, at around 8:00 PM, an unknown person stole his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-06-1M-6012 from the old bus stand near Shiv Bhojanalaya. The FIR was lodged on 27.06.2000. During the investigation, the co-accused, Damodar, while in police custody in another case, voluntarily gave information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, including voluntary disclosures leading to recovery, can suffice for conviction, emphasizing the importance of reliability even when witnesses turn ho....
The prosecution must prove that the accused knowingly received stolen property to establish guilt under Section 411 of IPC.
Recovery evidence alone cannot establish guilt unless corroborated by other substantive evidence; mere presumption from recovery is insufficient for conviction.
(1) Disclosure statement – While recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act can be a crucial piece of evidence, it cannot be sole basis for conviction – It is not substantive evidence.(2) Presumption ....
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the stolen nature of property to secure a conviction under Section 411 of IPC.
The absence of independent witnesses during the recovery of stolen property raises reasonable doubt, making conviction unsafe.
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
