The inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods. In Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh5, this Court discussed the essential ingredients for conviction under Section 411 of the IPC. Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, in his erudite opinion rightly observed that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove,
“5. (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused,
(2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and
(3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property….”
Confession of co-accused, resulting in recovery of stolen property from possession of appellant is not sufficient to convict the appellant, when the prosecution had not established essential ingredient of mens rea or knowledge of the appellant that such goods were stolen property. Held, the conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC, cannot be sustained.
[Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P., (2022) 9 SCC 676]
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments.
Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
Case Comment: 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. Therefore, applying the test in Trimbak [supra], it must be held that the appellant was erroneously convicted