Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned counsel further submitted that no case under Section 414 of IPC was also made out against the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners were not found in possession of the documents of the motorcycles which were alleged to be recovered from their possession. He further submitted that the basic ingredients of Section 414 of IPC are not satisfied in view of the fact that there is no material to show any knowledge on the part of the petitioners that the motorcycles were stolen property and there was no reason to believe on the part of the petitioners that the motorcycles were stolen property. He also submitted that the intent and the purpose of voluntarily concealing the property has also not been proved. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Khodadin Ansari -vs- State of Bihar reported in (2011) 4 East Cr C 476 (Pat) Paragraph- 9 and 10. On the same point, he also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Md. Islam -vs- State of Bihar reported in 2010 (1) East Cr C 218 (Pat) Paragraph-9 to 14.

13. I have given some anxious consideration to the fact for conviction u/s 414 1PC, as to whether it was required to be proved that the seized motorcycle in question were stolen property. Let me say that section 414 I.P.C. deals with an offence of assisting in concealment of stolen property. It has been held that once the prosecution proves regarding the ingredient of "reason to believe to be stolen property", the onus shifts upon the defence for proving that the property was genuinely held by him. In the instant case, the prosecution by way of proving the seizure list and seizure of the motorcycle alongwith fake seals of different transport officers and registration certificates. The prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proving a case that the defence should not have any reason to believe that the property is not a stolen property. Admittedly, the papers of the vehicle is not in the name of accused appellants and if read with it with the help of section 114 illustration (a), the onus shifted upon the defence for proving that the property was not stolen. There is a vital difference between the ingredients of Sec 411 and 414 IPC. It is found that to constitute an offence u/s 411, the property in question must be established to be stolen property, while Sec 414 IPC relates to the property in respect of which voluntary assistance has been rendered sufficient to conceal, dispose of or making away with it, which the offender knows or have reason to believe.

27. This Court finds that the learned appellate court has recorded specific finding with regard to Section 120B of Indian Penal Code in paragraph 11 of the judgment by referring to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and further recorded under paragraph 12 of the judgment that pin point evidence of meeting of mind regarding criminal conspiracy was not required for proving the case under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. It has been held that the informant of the case had adduced sufficient evidence along with seizure for proving the case of the prosecution that all the accused/appellants conspired for commission of offence under Sections 467, 468, 414 and 472 of IPC except the accused Shakil Ahmed who was convicted for offence under Section 467, 468, 472 along with Section 120B IPC. It has also been held that though offence under Section 120B IPC is separate and exclusive offence but it has to be read with the main offence of the IPC. The appellate court has also dealt with the basic ingredients for offence under Section 414 of IPC and referred to Section 114 illustration (a) of the Evidence Act while upholding the conviction of the petitioners and other co- accused for offence under Section 114 of IPC.

28. It has been held that Section 414 IPC deals with the offence of assistance in concealment of stolen property and once prosecution proves regarding the ingredients of "reason to believe to be stolen property" the onus shifts upon the defence to prove that the property was genuinely held by him. The learned court recorded that the prosecution by way of proving the seizure list and seizure of the motorcycle along with fake seal of different transport officers and registration certificate and admittedly the papers of the vehicles were not in the name of the accused appellants and ultimately convicted the petitioners for offence under Section 414 of IPC. There are concurrent findings in connection with the manner in which the offence has been committed. The appellate court also recorded a finding that the accused conspired with gang of motorcycle lifters or formed a gang of persons for selling the stolen motorcycle and they were found in possession of stolen motorcycle for which they could not explain to retain the same. The appellate court also recorded that it has specifically come that all the rubber stamps were found to be manufactured in rubber stamp shop in the name and style of National Rubber Stamp company of accused Shakil Ahmed. Shakil Ahmed was also co-accused in the case and faced the trial along with others and was convicted.