Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Lakshmana Rao, J.
In Re: Thotabalija Puchala Somanna and Anr.
Versus
Decided On : 17.12.1940
Section 411 - Conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code - The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code for being in possession of stolen property. The court also considered the appellant's affiliation with a criminal tribe but did not find it to be a ground for differentiation of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code for being in possession of stolen properties following a house breaking and theft incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code based on the recovery of stolen properties and upheld the verdict of the jury. The second appellant's sentence was reduced due to his affiliation with a criminal tribe.
Issues: Conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, differentiation of sentence based on affiliation with a criminal tribe.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no ground for interference with the conviction and upheld the sentence of the first appellant. However, it reduced the sentence of the second appellant based on his affiliation with a criminal tribe.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the first appellant's sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years was upheld. The second appellant's sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced, the first appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the second appellant to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2. There was house breaking by night and theft in P.W. ls building on the night of 27th February, and stolen properties were recovered on the information of each of the appellants from the place shown by him on 1st March. So the appellants were charged in the alternative under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and they denied the alleged recovery. The trial was by jury and the verdict was unanimous. There was no misdirection and on the evidence the jury could reasonably have convicted the appellants under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction and the sentence of the first appellant cannot be said to be excessive. That the second appellant is a member of the criminal tribe is no ground for differentiation of sentence for an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. Otherwise the appeal is dismissed.
AI
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
