The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in order to prove the charge under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code, it has to be proved that he was found in possession of the stolen property with knowledge and reason to believe of it to have been transferred by commission of dacoity.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the dacoity was committed in the house of the informant and the cash and valuables were looted away. He and his family were then locked inside the house, while the individuals involved camped out with their loot on the informant's Santro car. The case was registered under Sections 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code. Later on, Sections 412 of Indian Penal Code was added after recovery of stolen articles.
The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the appellant under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the Appellant
The appellant contended that the description provided in the FIR lacked adequate details and was vague and evasive. It was also contended that the articles were not marked as material exhibits, nor were they produced in court. Additionally, chain of custody is not established.
Contentions of the State
The state contended that the VCD player has been specifically referred to in the FIR and the same was recovered from the house of the appellant- duly identified by the informant. The defended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that it is a well-established legal principle regarding the evaluation of evidence that it should be considered in totality rather than alone. Also, adjudication of criminal case involves two parts. First part is whether the crime was at all committed or not, and second part is to fix the identity of the author of crime.
It was furthermore observed that to establish the allegation made under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be demonstrated that he was discovered in possession of the stole goods with knowledge and a reasonable suspicion that it had been transferred via dacoity. According to Indian Penal Code Section 412, the fundamental element of the offence is possession with knowledge of the stolen article.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Amar Singh v. State of M.P.
It was noted that the description provided in the FIR and the seizure list roughly corresponded with the other stolen items that were taken from the appellants. Since the FIR is filed as soon as the incident occurs and victims are traumatized by the incident. it is unrealistic to expect them to recall every detail of the stolen goods. As a result, the FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all the facts. It makes sense that the victim of the offense won't be able to provide full data, including the production number of each and every item. Requesting such a depiction would be equivalent to placing an unjustifiable and excessive burden of proof on the prosecution to establish its case.
It was furthermore noted that even the non-examination of the seizure list witness is not fatal as under Section 100(5) of Cr.P.C.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the prosecution has proved its charge under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants has proved its charge under Section 412 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants namely, Rathu Singh @ Ranjit Singh, Rakesh Tiwary @ Pintu and Charkhu Baraik and the appellant Pappu Kumar Jha @ Pappu Jha is concerned, the articles, which were recovered, did not, at all, match with the articles which were seized from his house. Therefore, he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Rathu Singh @ Ranjit Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1142 of 2012
Advocates for the Appellant: M/s B.M. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate H.K. Shikarwar and N.K. Jaiswal, Advocates
Advocates for the State: M/s P.K. Chatterjee, P.D. Agrawal, Vishwanath Roy, SPP & Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
