Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Narayan Sao S/o Late Dukhu Sao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 912 of 2008
Decided on : 15-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 413, 120, 414, 34, 26, 410 – Offence of Theft – Instant criminal revision is directed against judgment of learned appellate court passed by Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal dismissing criminal appeal and upholding judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. Case whereby petitioner was convicted under Section 414/34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months under Section 414/34 of Indian Penal Code. – Held, If there is sufficient cause to believe on basis of surrounding circumstance, it can well be inferred that thing exists and hence, from surrounding circumstances, it can be inferred that there is reason to believe that property is theft and that is sufficient for compliance under Section 414 of I.P.C. and it is not necessary to convict a person for theft under Section 379 of I.P.C. for conviction under Section 414 I.P.C. However, in said judgment, Hon’ble Patna High Court after considering facts and circumstances of case at hand, was of view that no case was made out under Sections 414, 413 and 120B of Indian Penal Code against petitioner of said case. – However, so far as principle of law is concerned, Hon’ble Patna High Court has also held that for a person to be convicted under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary that another person must be traced out and convicted for an offence of committing theft. – Court is of considered view that judgment which has been relied upon by petitioner is rather against petitioner and in facts and circumstances of this case, there are sufficient circumstances available to have a reason to believe, so far as present petitioner is concerned, that motorcycle was a stolen property and that was sufficient to convict petitioner under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code, even if no theft report in connection with motorcycle was ever exhibited before learned courts below. – Court does not find any reason to interfere with impugned judgments passed by courts below. – Criminal Revision Application Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State of Jharkhand.
3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment of the learned appellate court dated 30.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2007 dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24.09.2007 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Lohardaga in G.R. Case No.220 of 2005/T.R. Case No. 278 of 2007 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 414/34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months under Section 414/34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 414 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, but there is no material on record to show that there was any theft report in connection with the motorcycle involved in this case, which has been alleged to have recovered from the house of the petitioner. He further submits that it has been brought on record that one Kamdara P.S. Case No. 36 of 2004 dated 30.09.2004 was registered under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code, but neither any document in connection with such case number has been exhibited, nor there is any evidence on record before the learned court below to show that Kamdara P.S. Case No. 36 of 2004 dated 30.09.2004 was in connection with the same motorcycle which is involved and recovered in the present case. Accordingly, he submits that in absence of any theft report in connection with the article i.e. motorcycle, no case in connection with its recovery, by stating it to be a stolen property, can be made out under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 410 as well as Section 414 of Indian Penal Code and further submitted that Section 26 of Indian Penal Code defines the term “reason to believe”. Learned counsel referred to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 608 of 2012 (Naveen Yadav –Vs- The State of Bihar) and submitted that in the said case, the ingredients of Section 414 of Indian Penal Code have been considered. He submits that it has been held by Hon’ble Patna High Court that the ingredients to establish an offence under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code are :
(i) Voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away property,
(ii) Knowledge or reason to believe that property is stolen property.
6. The word “voluntarily assists” is impregnant with the meaning that there is more than one person as a person to assist and there must be a person to be assisted. There may be a person who commits theft and there may be a person who receives the stolen property, but there may be a person who assists in disposal of the property. A person who has committed theft may be charged under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and a person who receives property found in possession of property may be charged under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code, but a person who assists for disposing of the stolen property is liable for the charge under Section 414 of Indian Penal Code. He submits that in this background, it has been held that, if a person found to be a person against whom there is material to suggest that he was engaged in assisting the disposal of theft property, then he may be liable as per first requirement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the second requirement as stated above under Section 414 of IPC is “knowledge” or “reason to believe” that the property involved is stolen property. Knowledge means mental cognition and it emphasizes that the person dealing with the property recognizes that it is a th
