Possession of stolen property is sufficient to establish theft, regardless of the ownership claims, and procedural compliance is essential for a fair trial.

JUDGMENT

The appeal in question is originated from a judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram on 22.05.2017 (for short, ‘the trial court’) whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Sections 457 , 461, 380, 413 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’) and convicted and sentenced. Appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.540/2013 and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 457 and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and to undergo imprisonment for three more months in case of default in payment of fine; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 461 ; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of `10,000/- under Section 380 and to undergo imprisonment for three more months in default of payment of fine. Set-off was also allowed for the period already undergone by him in custody prior to and during trial. Sentences were directed to be served concurrently.

2. Rather than delving on the arguments orally advanced by the learned counsel, this Court finds it appropriate and reasonable to extract the relevant portions of the argument note furnished by the learned counsel titled as ‘conclusion’ in order to maintain clarity and brevity :-

“The appellant submits that whatever stated in the grounds of Appeal are the part and parcel of this arguments note and same may be considered in addition to this. The appellant further submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the Appellant especially either under Section 379 or 380 of IPC which shall not be run together and in both cases of theft, even otherwise the consent is very material and the same was given to the Appellant by PW2. There is no evidence to prove the case of under Section 457 of as the Appellant never entered into the dwelling house of the PW1 and PW2, but there are some evidence as the Appellant entered into the premises or compound of PW1 and the same can be accepted as the only allegation to attract commission of an offence under Sections 447 or 448 of . The allegation of 461 even otherwise alleged to be proved cannot be accepted as the Appellant has never forged any number plate for getting any benefit to the Appellant and no contrary evidence has been proved otherwise. The main crux of the allegations as the case was tried before the learned Sessions Court due to cognizance taken of under Section 413 of and it is settled that Sections 379 and 380 cannot be go together with Section 411 to 414 of . In the present case the culprit cannot be a receiver since there is no evidence that the Appellant was habitually receiving the stolen property. The very allegation about the Appellant as a habitual offender is not proved. In general the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and on that count the Appellant is entitled to get acquitted.”

3. The points of argument discerned from the above extract are :

“1. Prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 379 or 380 IPC , since consent, the crucial element underlying those offences, was evidenced as given by PW2.

2. Evidence is insufficient to prove commission of the offence under Section 457 IPC . According to him, there is total absence of evidence to establish the entry of the appellant into the dwelling house of PW1 and PW2.

3. According to him, on the strength of the evidence on record that the accused entered into the premises or compound of the house of PW1 & PW2, the conclusion at the most can be reached was that the accused committed offences under Sections 447 or 448 IPC .

4. Evidence already on record is insufficient to establish that the accused has forged the number plate of the vehicle for getting any benefit to him and therefore, the offence under Section 461 IPC is not proved.

5. The law is well settled that the offences under Sections 379 and 380 IPC will not go alongwith those under Secti