Section 411 IPC Attracts Only When The Property In Question Is A Stolen Property: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment passed by the Telangana High Court whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant and Moulana (one of the accused persons) was partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment from three years, as awarded by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was reduced to one year.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Hence, when both the Courts below reached a conclusion that there is no commission of theft on the part of the accused persons, there arises no question of them committing an offence of dishonestly receiving a stolen property punishable under Section 411 IPC. In our view, the High Court has committed grave error in upholding the order of conviction of the present appellant under Section 411 IPC.”

Advocate Byrapaneni Suyodhan represented the Appellant while Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant, the cousin brother of the deceased, registered an FIR alleging that the deceased, who was engaged in the business of selling paddy to the rice mills, had gone to Warangal to collect outstanding dues amounting to Rs 2,92,629. When the complainant called him, the person who received the call replied that it was a wrong number, and thereafter, the deceased’s phone was switched off. The investigation culminated in a chargesheet against accused-Moulana and the appellant. The chargesheet stated that after working with accused-Moulana, who was a leading paddy broker, for 3 years, the deceased had begun his separate paddy business. The two were also involved in an altercation.

On the fateful day, after consuming alcohol together, accused Moulana and the deceased left together for their homes. It was there that the accused, Moulana, murdered the deceased by slitting his throat, thereafter, concealing the body in nearby bushes. With the assistance of the appellant, who had agreed to help accused Moulana for a consideration of ₹30,000, the dead body was thrown on a burning pyre to obliterate the final piece of evidence. The breakthrough in the investigation came when the police secured the presence of PW12-M. Khaja Pasha, who disclosed that the accused Moulana had approached him and made an extra-judicial confession, in his presence, admitting that he had murdered the deceased.

The Trial Court acquitted both the accused persons of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC; however, it returned a finding of guilt qua both the accused persons under Section 411 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court later reduced the quantum of the sentence. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal by special leave, laying a challenge to the judgment of the High Court.

Reasoning

Considering the fact that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the Bench mentioned that the prosecution owed a greater duty to prove every circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, so much so that the circumstances so proved would form a complete chain of evidence, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

The Bench noted that the the Trial Court returned a finding that the accused-Moulana and the appellant were found in possession of Rs 2,60,000 and Rs. 25,000 respectively and coupled with their inability to account for their possession of such a huge amount of cash, they were liable to be convicted for being guilty of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. “In our considered opinion, the High Court has grossly erred by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for the cash in their possession. The High Court clearly erred in applying the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC”, it said.

The Bench was of the view that in the 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 could not be inferred that the said amount was stolen goods. As per the Bench, the cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to the amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence.

The Bench further explained, “Thus, to establish culpability under Section 411 IPC, 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. The natural corollary being if the courts upon trial reach a conclusion that the property in question is not a stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC especially when the whole case of the prosecution relates to the events forming part of the same transaction.”

The Bench also observed that in order to uphold a conviction under Section 411 IPC, it is sine qua non that the property in the possession of the accused is a stolen property. If the property is not a stolen property, the charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment of the High Court. “The conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is unsustainable in view of the fact that both the accused (including the present appellant) stand acquitted by the High Court and the Trial Court for the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC”, it held.

Cause Title: Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 999)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Byrapaneni Suyodhan, B Laxman, AOR Tatini Basu, Advocate Kumar Shashank

Respondent: Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw, AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocates Yatharth Kansal, Srikanth Varma Mudunuru

Click here to read/download Judgment