Justice KM Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court rules that a person can only be convicted under section 411 IPC when the person has the knowledge and belief that the goods found in his possession are stolen goods.

The Division Bench held that 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.

Authored by Justice Roy, the Judgment states that “to establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the “believe” factor of the person is of stellar import. For a successful prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either negligent or that he had 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 Supreme Court observed 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.

Read the full judgment:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/22345/22345_2019_6_1501_37962_Judgement_07-Sep-2022.pdf 

Case Details:-

Shiv Kumar v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2022