Penal Code, 1860: s.411 – Dishonestly receiving stolen property – Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused and co-accused received the articles looted from the truck knowing fully well that those are stolen property – Trial court convicted both the accused u/s.411 – High Court confirmed the conviction – On appeal, held: To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the ‘believe’ factor of the person is of stellar import – It is not enough for prosecution to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods – The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable – In the instant case, there is disparity between the figures in the FIR lodged and seizure memo as to the value of articles seized from the appellant’s possession – Moreover, the appellant in usual course sold utensils in his shop and nothing was unnatural about him possessing such household articles, as seized from him – Absence of seal on the seizure memo and discrepancies in the testimonies made the seizure evidence totally unreliable – The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles – Thus, prosecution failed to establish that appellant had knowledge that articles seized from his possession were stolen goods – Conviction of appellant u/s.411 IPC set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the “believe” factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it culpable. [Para 15][501-H; 502-A-B]
2. In the FIR, Rs. 12,50,000/- is shown as the total value of the goods (utensils, clothes, hosiery goods and electrical goods) loaded in the truck. However, in the seizure memo, only Rs.20,000/- is shown as the value of the articles (steel articles, torch, aluminium box) allegedly seized from the appellant’s possession. Considering the disparate and incomparable figures, those values cannot be reasonably inter-linked to support the guilt finding under Section 411 of the IPC. Moreover, the appellant in usual course, sold utensils in his shop and nothing is unnatural about him possessing such household articles, as seized from him. [Para 16][502-C-D]
3. Furthermore, PW-22 was the Sub-Inspector at Police Station who received information about clothes and utensils being sold at low prices. PW-22 while proving his signature on the seizure memo, had acknowledged that the appellant-accused had a utensil store and most pertinently “because of hastiness”, seal has not been put on the seizure memo. The testimony of PW-22 suggested that a defective procedure was followed in preparing the seizure memo and importantly, his testimony does not show that the appellant was aware that he received articles, which had any connection with the stolen goods in the truck. [Para 18][502H; 503-A]
4. The contradiction in the testimonies of PW-5, PW-22 and Sub-Inspector (PW-24) are also quite glaring. For instance, the utensils as per PW-5, were seized by PW-24 in the presence of PW-5, however, PW-24 in his testimony has denied seizing any property, owing to lacking Jurisdiction, stating “seizure must have been done by Police Station, Panagarh” and not by the officer from the Police Station Kotwali, Satna. Apart from the above, interestingly, the support for the testimony of PW-24 is provided by PW-22 to the effect that PW-24 was not present at appellant’s house during the seizure process. He has also denied that PW24 called PW-5 to the house of appellant to witness the seizure. Moreover, the seizure memo being written by PW-24 is also not supported by him. Noticing all these discrepancies, the seizure evidence is found to be totally unreliable. [Para 20][503-C-E]
5. By applying the legal proposition as propounded to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods. This essential element was not established against the appellant to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against him. That apart, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens Rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC. [Paras 22, 23][504-A-C] Haricharan Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 : [1964] 6 SCR 623; Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572 : [1963] 2 Suppl. SCR 585; Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39 – relied on.
Sambhu Das alias Bijoy Das & Anr. v. State of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 : [2010] 11 SCR 493; Nagappa Dondiba Kalal v. State of Karnataka (1980) Suppl. SCC 336; Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation v. Cork Manufacturing Co. (2007) 8 SCC
120 : [2007] 9 SCR 508 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.