The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that it is settled law and mandatory for the prosecution to establish the essential ingredient of knowledge of the accused that the goods are stolen property. To bring home the guilt under Section 411 of IPC, the following four segments has to be proven by the prosecution namely (i). dishonestly; (ii). receives or retains any stolen property; (iii). knowing; or (iv). having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the accused no. 1 was found in the possession of Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle which was the subject matter of theft. Thereafter, the case was registered and the charge sheet was filed. The trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months. Aggrieved by this, the appeal was filed before the Additional Session Judge and the same was dismissed. Against this decision, the present revision is filed.
Contentions of the State
The Petitioner submitted that the trial court and the first appellate court erred in convicting the accused. It was furthermore submitted that the accused had no knowledge about the stolen property.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the accused is the receiver of the stolen property and the presumption under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act shall be drawn against him.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is established law that the prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the property being stolen in order to prove the element of knowledge.
The court furthermore observed that the following ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring the charge under Section 411 of the IPC and are as follows
(i). dishonestly;
(ii). receives or retains any stolen property;
(iii). knowing; or
(iv). having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
The Court relied upon the judgments titled Vimla v. Delhi Administration, and Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The court noted that simply because property is said to be recovered from the possession of petitioner/accused, it does not mean to say that the possession was with the knowledge that it is a stolen property.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court, under Section 411 of IPC are liable to be set aside.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Vinjamuri Satish, Kajuluru Village, W.g.district V. The State Of A P Rep By Pp High Court Hyderabad
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V Srinivas
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2538/2011
Advocate for the Petitioner: T N M Ranga Rao
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
