Sonal Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sonal Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 July, 2023

I.A. No.5061 of 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant-Sonal Jain arising out of judgment dated 21.11.2022 delivered in Sessions Trial No.284/2016 by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli District-Sagar (M.P.) is taken up.

The appellant has been convicted under Sections 412 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

Learned counsel for the appellant, by taking this Court to the prosecution story, submits that an incident of dacoity had taken place on 21-22.06.2016. The allegation against the present appellant is that the jewellery which became subject matter of dacoity was purchased by the present appellant. Thus, this appellant was held guilty for committing offence only under Section 412 of I.P.C.

By taking this Court to the language employed in Section 412 of I.P.C., Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that in order to attract this provision, the prosecution needs to establish that the property was received 'dishonestly' by the person who knows or has Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 7/19/2023 4:59:01 PM 2 reason to believe that the transferred property is arising out of dacoity whereas in the instant case, prosecution has not produced any evidence whatsoever to establish this basic ingredient. Thus, Section 412 of I.P.C. cannot be pressed into service. He placed reliance on (2002) 6 SCC 247 (K. Venkateshwara Rao alias Venkatal alias I. Rao vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.) The prayer is opposed by Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned Government counsel for the State on the basis of para-59 of the judgment wherein Court below opined that the appellant has not established that he is a businessman doing business of gold-silver. In absence of any plausible explanation coming forward under Section 313/315 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of appellant, Court below has not committed any error of fact or law in convicting the appellant.

We have heard the parties at length.

Section 412 of I.P.C. reads as under:

"412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.-- Who e v e r dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

(Emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 7/19/2023 4:59:01 PM 3 The Apex Court in the case of K. Venkateshwara Rao (supra) in para-5 held as under:

"5. The above extract of the evidence of PW-24 clearly shows that the appellant had in that statement of his, not made any admission that the documents which were taken from his possession belonged to the lorry in question or that he had the knowledge that the said lorry was involved in any dacoity and that he had taken the said documents knowing that the documents involved pertained to a vehicle which was involved in a dacoity. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution in this case having failed to establish the charge of dacoity against the appellant and assuming that the documents Ex. P-36 to P-40 were recovered lawfully from the appellant, still has not established the fact that the appellant had received these documents knowing that the same or having believed that these documents were involved in a dacoity. Since the onus of proving this knowledge lay on the prosecution and the prosecution having failed to discharge this onus on the material on record, we are not satisfied that the appellant could be held guilty of the offence under Section 412 IPC, more so when he has specifically denied the recovery."

(Emphasis supplied) Prima facie, in para-59 of impugned judgment, Court below has shifted the onus on the shoulders of the appellant to prove himself innocent whereas as per the judgment of Supreme Court aforesaid, the onus was on the shoulders of the prosecution.

Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any conclusive opinion on merits, we deem it proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 7/19/2023 4:59:01 PM 4

Accordingly, I.A. No.5061 of 2023 is allowed.

Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the remaining jail sentence of appellant-Sonal Jain is hereby suspended and it is directed that this appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the trial Court, Rehli District-Sagar on 09/10/2023 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

                               (SUJOY PAUL)                               (ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
                                  JUDGE                                           JUDGE

                          HK




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HIMANSHU
KOSHTA
Signing time: 7/19/2023
4:59:01 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court