Issues
- What are the essential ingredients for convicting a person for the offence under Section 411 of the I.P.C?
- Whether the fact of selling the articles alleged to be theft at a lower price itself can lead to a conclusion that the accused was aware of theft of those articles?
- Whether the confessional statement of the co-accused person be treated as primary evidence for convicting the other accused?
- Cases where the Apex Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to reverse the concurrent findings.
Held
- In this 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 made by the co-accused will not otherwise be clinching, for conviction under section 411 of the I.P.C.
- To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the “believe” factor of the person is of stellar importance. For a 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. - That apart, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant knowing utensils were 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 not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC. The Prosecution’s evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as “you speak an infinite deal of nothing.”
- Where the fundamental evidence is not available and the law leans in the appellant’s favour, notwithstanding the concurrent finding, the Court has to exercise corrective jurisdiction as the circumstances justify. As such, taking a cue from Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs. Cork Manufacturing Co., 2007 8 SCC 120, the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 is found to be merited to do justice to the appellant who was held to be guilty, without the requisite evidence to establish his mens rea in the crime.
- 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 our view, cannot be sustained.
Relevant Para No.
- 12, 15, 23, 24 & 25