Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the another accused having knowledge of receiving stolen goods as given under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 411 IPC reads as follows:

“411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property– Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Noting that the key ingredient for a crime is 'mens rea', the top court has held that 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", observed a bench of Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy.

The division bench made these observations while setting aside the conviction of one Shiv Kumar under section 411 IPC.

In the case before Court, a written report was given to the Town Inspector, City Kotwali, Satna that a truck loaded with household articles failed to reach its destination, four days after its departure. 

The owner of the Excel Transport Agency, on learning that the truck was standing on Galla Mandi, Satna, found that the loaded goods from the truck were missing.

During the 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 appellant Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad allegedly knowing the articles to be stolen property.

It was the further case of the prosecution that the goods in question were sold at a cheaper rate by the appellant and another accused.

"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 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", observed the bench.

Court also noted that in the FIR Rs. 12,50,000 was shown as the total value of the goods loaded in the truck, however, in the seizure memo, only Rs.20,000 was shown as the value of the articles allegedly seized from appellant Shiv Kumar'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", further observed the bench.

While setting aside the conviction, the bench also relied on Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

It was also held that the prosecution failed to establish any basis for Shiv Kumar to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. In this regard, the division bench said,

"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. 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."

Case Title: Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh