Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Sanjeev – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Vashisth, J. - Present appeal has been filed by appellant- Sanjeev Kumar, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, in session case No. 93 of 2002 arising from FIR No. 167 dated 06.04.2002, under Sections 395/397 IPC, registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.
2. However, in the proceedings of the said FIR, five accused i.e. Sanjeev, Mausam, Sudesh, Manoj and Harish were tried, but vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2004, only appellant-Sanjeev was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411IPC and resultantly was sentenced for a period of 01 year as rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R. I. for 03 months.
3. Appellant was found in possession of partial looted amount of Rs. 13,000/- alongwith photographs and one bag belonged to the complainant. Initially, FIR (ExPj/2) was registered on 05.04.2002 under Section 379 IPC on the version given by the complainant- Joginder Singh. Subsequently, on 15.04.2002, by recording the supplementary statement of complainant Jogi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the accused's knowledge or strong belief of knowing the articles to have been stolen in the offence of dishonestly rece....
Possession of stolen articles – Key ingredient for a crime is mens rea – To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, "believe" factor of the person is of stellar import.
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.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
(1) Although Apex Court is bestowed with capacious powers under Article 136 of Constitution, yet, while beseeching such powers in a criminal appeal by special leave, Apex Court would by and large abs....
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused received stolen property dishonestly, and weak evidence may not be sufficient to establish guilt.
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
