The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that to prove the offense under Section 411 of IPC, it is mandatory for the prosecution to establish that retaining of goods with the knowledge that it is a stolen property.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that some unknown offenders entered into the Malleswara Swamy temple premises and committed theft. Thereafter, on the report of P.W.1-Manager of Pedaparimi and Katrapadu group of temple case was registered under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. The accused persons were arrested and on the basis of their confession seized two gold Mangals Sutrams along with other materials. The trial court found the accused guilty of the offense under Section 411 of IPC. Furthermore, the appeal was filed and the same was dismissed which resulted in the present criminal revision.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt for the alleged offense; the mediators' evidence is unreliable with regard to recovering the property; and it is not possible to establish a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that part of the stolen property was recovered from the accused. It was furthermore submitted that the evidence produced by the prosecution is corroborated with each other.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble court observed that to bring home the guilt under Section 411 of IPC, the following four ingredients have 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.
The court noted that the prosecution didn’t inspire confidence that the petitioner has knowledge that gold mangalasutrams is a stolen property and merely because the property is recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused it does not mean that they are stolen property.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view 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: MARUBOINA SRINU @ MADDU SRINU Vs THE STATE OF AP
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Srinivas
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 436 OF 2010
Advocate for the Petitioner: SRI. TURAGA SAI SURYA
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
