Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Rakesh Kumar Alias Lovely & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRR-341-2020 and CRR-2271-2019
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Criminal Revision - Theft - IPC 457, 380, 411 - The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 411 IPC for possession of stolen property. The prosecution proved the possession of stolen gold ornaments by the accused, which were later identified by the complainant and his daughter-in-law. The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove the title of the ornaments, but only the possession and knowledge of the accused. The revisions were dismissed, and one of the convicts was directed to surrender for carrying out the remaining sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were acquitted of charges under IPC 457 and 380 but convicted under Section 411 IPC for possession of stolen property. The prosecution alleged theft in the house of Dr. Vijay Mahajan, and the stolen property was recovered from the accused based on their disclosure statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved the possession of stolen gold ornaments by the accused, which were later identified by the complainant and his daughter-in-law. The court upheld the conviction under Section 411 IPC and dismissed the revisions. One convict was directed to surrender for carrying out the remaining sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of stolen property, the requirement to prove the title of the ornaments, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction under Section 411 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution was not required to prove the title of the stolen property, but only the possession and knowledge of the accused. The recovery of stolen gold ornaments and their identification by the complainant and his daughter-in-law were crucial in establishing the possession of the accused.
Final Decision: The revisions were dismissed, and one of the convicts was directed to surrender for carrying out the remaining sentence imposed upon him.
ORDER
Deepak Gupta, J. - This order shall dispose of aforesaid two criminal revision petitions arising out of the same FIR.
The three petitioners (Rakesh Kumar @ Lovely - petitioner in CRR No.341 of 2020; and Sonu Kumar & Narinder Kumar @ Neetu -petitioners in CRR No.2271 of 2019) along with Ashok Kumar were tried by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur in case FIR No.69 dated 24.04.2011, registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, under Sections 457, 380 IPC. Vide judgment dated 02.11.2016, though they were acquitted for the charges under Sections 457 as well as 380 IPC but were convicted under Section 411 IPC. Vide separate order of even date, all four of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default sentence for committing the said offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. All four of them filed separate appeals, which were heard together by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, sentence was reduced and all four of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default sentence, vide judgment dated 08.08.2019. Against the aforesaid judgments of the Courts below, these two revisions have been field by three of the convicts.
2. FIR was lodged on the complaint of PW1 Suchint Kumari by alleging theft by breaking into the room of her son Vijay Mahajan and to have stolen the gold ornaments. It is contended that the case of the prosecution to the effect that recovery of stolen property was effected from the petitioners, is based on disclosure statements allegedly made by them. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rightly acquitted them under Sections 457 and 380 IPC but went in error in recording the conviction under Section 411 IPC. There is no evidence on record that from where the petitioners and co-accused had purchased the stolen property. None of the prosecution witnesses stated in this regard. There was delay on the part of the complainant in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been taken into consideration. Various discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses have not been noticed.
3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the case files carefully.
4. Prosecution allegations are that on the night intervening 23/24.04.2011, theft was committed in the house of Dr. Vijay Mahajan, Rulia Ram Colony, Gurdaspur. The son and daughter-in-law of the complainant were out of station. FIR was lodged on the complaint of Suchint Kumari, mother of Dr. Vijay. Theft was detected in the morning of 24.04.2011 and it was found that outer door of the room of her son Vijay Mahajan had been opened by breaking the glass of upper ventilator. Godrej almirah was found to be opened. It was also reported that Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Kumar @ Lovely used to work in the clinic of the son of the complainant. It was suspected that they had committed the theft with the help of Narinder Kumar @ Neetu and Sonu Kumar. FIR was lodged. Son and daughter-in-law of the complainant came and made statements and gave details about the stolen gold and other articles. The four accused (3 petitioners and Ashok Kumar) were arrested. On the basis of disclosure statements suffered by them, Sonu Kumar got recovered, Rs. 1,99,400/-, one gold nose pin, one pair of ring and one ear-ring besides a gold necklace. Narinder Kumar @ Neetu on the basis of disclosure statement got recovered Rs. 2,15,000/- besides gold chain, one pair of gold tapas and one piece of necklace. Rakesh Kumar @ Lovely, on the basis disclosure statement got recovered Rs. 1,18, 200/- besides gold chain, and a pendant, which was taken into possession. Ashok Kumar got recovered Rs. 2,12,300/- besides one pair of gold tapas and one piece of gold necklace pursuant to his disclosure statement.
5. After completion of
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for conviction under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution is not required to prove the title of the stolen property, but only the possession an....
The court upheld the conviction for possession of stolen property, affirming the sufficiency of evidence while modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs.9,000.
Possession of stolen property requires knowledge of its stolen nature; conviction upheld with modified sentence to fine.
The courts upheld a conviction under Section 379 IPC due to insufficient evidence for the original charges while emphasizing reliance on circumstantial evidence.
Recovery evidence alone cannot support a conviction without corroborating witnesses identifying the accused.
Knowledge of stolen property is essential for conviction under Section 411 IPC; mere possession is insufficient without corroborative evidence.
Courts can affirm convictions where prosecution evidence is mutually corroborative, and sentences can be refused to run concurrently based on the nature of offenses.
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
