Penal Code, 1860 – ss.411, 379 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114 – Conviction u/s.411, when not sustainable – Appellant and coaccused were acquitted of the charges u/ss.302, 201 and 379 IPC however, were convicted u/s.411 IPC on the ground that they were found in possession of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/respectively, and were unable to account for their possession of such a huge amount of cash – Conviction u/s.411 IPC confirmed by High Court – Sustainability:
Held: Unsustainable – High Court grossly erred by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for the cash in their possession when in fact it lied on the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt – It erred in applying the presumption u/s.114, Evidence Act to convict the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.411 IPC – The illustration u/s.114, Evidence Act would only apply where the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of the theft of goods and the possession thereof by the accused soon after the incident – No evidence on record as to the total amount which the deceased was carrying with him when the incident took place – In absence of any convincing evidence regarding the amount being carried by the deceased, by the mere fact of recovery of a cash amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the accused, it cannot be inferred that the said amount was stolen goods – The cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence – Conviction u/s.411 IPC cannot be based solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash – Appellant acquitted – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 14, 14.2, 16, 17]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.411, 379 – Whether the conviction u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact that both the accused were acquitted for the offence of theft punishable u/s.379 IPC: Held: No – Conviction u/s.411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is unsustainable as both the appellant and the co-accused were acquitted by the High Court and the Trial Court for the offence of theft punishable u/s.379 IPC – Since the very beginning, the case of the prosecution was that the co-accused committed the homicide of the deceased, stole his belongings, including Rs.2,92,629/-, while the deceased was on a business trip – The co-accused paid Rs. 30,000/- out of the total money that he had stolen from the deceased to the appellant – However, the Trial Court rejected this theory of theft, against which no appeal was filed – Thus, once the Trial Court had acquitted both the coaccused and the appellant u/s.379 IPC, it erred in holding that they were liable u/s.411 – To establish culpability u/s.411, it must be proved that the accused had dishonestly received or retained the stolen property and in doing so, he either had knowledge or reason to believe that the same is a stolen property – Thus, if the courts upon trial hold that the property in question is not a stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable u/s.411 especially when the whole case of the prosecution relates to the events forming part of the same transaction. [Paras 15.3-15.5, 16]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.102 – When attracted:
Held: In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations raised by it against the accused person are preliminarily satisfied – However, if the prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of s.102, the criminal trial initiated against the accused deserves to be dismissed without asking the accused to lead any evidence from the side of defence. [Para 14.1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.