Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In view of the observation given above, the recovery of the case property from the possession of accused Nand Kishore comes under strong doubt. The planting of property cannot be ruled out.

26. PW10 SI Yograj Dalal stated that no original bill of the mobile phone was handed over to him by the complainant nor there was any document procured during the investigation to show that the mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused Nand Kishore was in fact stolen from the possession of the complainant. The complainant being owner of mobile is not proved on record. It is also admitted by PW11 during his cross examination that he has not obtained the CDR from the service provider nor confirmed the IMEI number of the recovered mobile phone. In such circumstances, there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the allegedly recovered mobile phone is the same mobile that was stolen from the possession of the complainant whereas the requirement of section 411 IPC i.e. dishonestly receiving or retaining the stolen property which has not been complied with.