Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. Sixthly, since both the accused-respondents have been convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC, they cannot be convicted for offence under Section 414 IPC. For a person cannot assist himself in disposing of concealing, disposing or making away with a property.

20. Lastly, while Janak Gurjar (P.W. 2) has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know whether the statues which he had packed were stolen or not. Mohanlal Sharma (P.W. 4), Gopal Singh (P.W. 5) have also admitted in their cross-examination that whatever they had said about the accused-appellant No.1 in their examination-in-chief was totally on the basis of hearsay. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting their testimonies against the accused-respondent No.1. Hence, both the learned counsel have supported the impugned judgment.

31. On the other hand, Section 414 IPC is as under:-

Section 414 - Assisting in concealment of stolen property Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe 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.

32. In order to make out an offence under Section 414 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish four things: firstly, the property in question is a stolen property; secondly, the accused assisted in concealing or disposing of, or making away with the said property; thirdly, he did so voluntarily; fourthly, he had reasons to believe it to be a stolen property.

34. Further, Section 414 IPC is not intended to punish those whose acts constitute a distinct offence punishable as such under Sections 411, 412 or 413 IPC. It is intended only to punish those acts of assistance which fall short of actual receipt or retention of the property, but are nevertheless distinctly calculated to thwart the detection of the crime by making away with the corpus delicti.

35. Even for proving the offence under Section 414 IPC, the prosecution had examined the five witnesses mentioned hereinabove. However, as mentioned above, Janak Gurjar (P.W. 2), Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 3) and Abhay Singh (P.W. 9) have clearly claimed in their cross-examination that they are unaware of the facts that the sculptures were stolen. Further, they have been shattered in their cross-examination. Their examination-in-chief suffers from exaggerations and omissions. Therefore, they do not further the prosecution case.

36. Even if the testimonies of these five witnesses were to be believed, the allegation against accused-respondent No.1 is that he had bought the stolen properties and had exported the same. However, by doing so, it cannot be said that he has assisted others. Moreover, since he was convicted by the learned trial court for offence under Section 411 IPC, he could not be convicted, as rightly held by the learned trial court, for offence under Section 414 IPC. For the one who receives the stolen property cannot be said to assist himself. Hence, obviously, his case would not fall within Section 414 IPC.