LexSHIV KUMAR versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 493 SHIV KUMAR v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2022) SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] 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 [2022] 7 S.C.R. 493 493 A B C D E F G H 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. 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][502- H; 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 PW- 24 called PW-5 to the house of appellant to witness the seizure. A B C D E F G H 495 Moreover, the seizure memo being written by PW-24 is also not sup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.