In Criminal Appeal No.1503 of 2022-SC- Where it is not established that accused dishonestly received stolen property with knowledge & belief that goods found in his possession were stolen, conviction u/s  411 IPC cannot be sustained: SC
Justices K.M. Joseph & Hrishikesh Roy [07-09-2022]

Read Order: SHIV KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, September 8, 2022: Referring to Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the believe factor of the person is of stellar import. 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.

The Division bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishishikesh Roy allowed the present appeal which was instituted to assail the judgment whereby the appellant’s conviction by the trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  was sustained by the High Court. The Bench was of the view that where it is not established that the appellant dishonestly received stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession were stolen, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained.

The prosecution’s case, as revealed from the impugned judgment, was that the complainant-Abhay Kumar Jain gave a written report to the Town Inspector with the information that a truck loaded with household articles operating under the informant’s Excel Transport Agency had proceeded from Indore for delivering goods at Satna. 

The truck driven by Gurmel Singh after starting from the transport office at Indore had, however, failed to reach its destination at Satna.  The informant, on learning that the truck was standing on Galla Mandi, Satna, found that the loaded goods from the truck were missing. 

Initially, an FIR was registered for offence under Section 406 of the IPC  however during police investigation, it came to light that the truck driver was murdered by Sadhu Singh alias Vijaybhan Singh with co-accused Raju alias Rajendra. The loaded goods in the truck were looted and those stolen articles were dishonestly received by the present appellant Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad allegedly knowing the articles to be stolen . It was  further the case of the prosecution that the goods in question were sold at cheaper rate by the two accused who were, accordingly, charged for offences under Section 411 of the IPC. 

The Trial Court convicted the co-accused Sadhu Singh for the offence of murder and related charges and  such conviction under  Section 411 of the IPC was affirmed on appeal, by the High Court, through the impugned judgment. The same was under challenge by way of present appeal. 

After hearing the submissions of the parties at length, the Court noted that in the present case, although recovery of items was made, the prosecution must further establish the essential ingredient of knowledge of the appellant that such goods are stolen property. Reliance solely upon the disclosure statement of accused Raju alias Rajendra and Sadhu alias Vijaybhan Singh will not otherwise be clinching, for the conviction under Section 411 of the IPC. 

Further Section 411 of IPC was taken into account. In view of the same the Court noted that 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, the Court further noted. 

Reliance was placed on the judgment in  Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.  In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that while applying the legal proposition as propounded to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion was that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession were stolen goods. This essential element was not established against the appellant to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against him. 

“In a case like this, where the fundamental evidence is not available and the law leans in appellant’s favour, notwithstanding the concurrent finding, the Court has to exercise corrective jurisdiction as the circumstances justify”, the Court further remarked. 

In these circumstances where it is not established that the appellant dishonestly received stolen property with the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession were stolen, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC, in the view of this Court cannot be sustained. Therefore, applying the test in Trimbak Case (Supra), the Bench held that the appellant was erroneously convicted. Therefore, allowing the appeal, the Court ordered the acquittal of the appellant.