Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 379 and section 411 of indian penal code in State vs Rakesh @ Bablu@ Gyan Chand on 28 March, 2026Matching Fragments
1. The present judgment decides the case arising out of FIR No. 615/2000, PS Darya Ganj, in which accused Rakesh @ Bablu Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC @ Gyan Chand has been tried for offences punishable under Sections 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A IPC.
3. The record shows that after the accused was produced upon fresh arrest, the case was restored to its original number. Copies of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. After hearing arguments on the point of charge and considering the material then available on record, charge dated 05.02.2024 was framed against the accused for offences under Sections 379/34 IPC, alternatively Section 411 IPC, and Section 174A RAJ KUMAR SINGH STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
16. To prove an offence under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the property in question was stolen property, that it was found in the possession of the accused, and that the accused knew or had reason to believe that it was stolen property.
17. At this stage, the definition contained in Section 410 IPC assumes significance. Section 411 IPC can come into play only when the property first answers the description of "stolen property" within the meaning of Section 410 IPC. Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC Therefore, before a conviction under Section 411 IPC can be recorded, the prosecution must first prove that the property in question had the legal character of stolen property, namely, that it had been transferred by theft, or by extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or criminal breach of trust, and that it continued to retain that character. Unless this basic requirement is satisfied, Section 411 IPC has no application.
26. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused, in furtherance of common intention, dishonestly removed the purse of the complainant out of his possession without consent. The charge under Section 379/34 IPC, thus, fails.
27. I now turn to the alternative charge under Section 411 IPC.
28. As already noted, for Section 411 IPC to apply, the prosecution must first establish that the property was "stolen property" within the meaning of Section 410 IPC. This is not a matter of form, but a substantive legal requirement. Unless the prosecution proves that the purse, the sum of Rs. 215, and the photograph were in fact property which had been Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH STATE Vs. RAKESH @ BABLU @ GYAN CHAND PS : DARYA GANJ Sections: 379/411/34 IPC dishonestly taken from the complainant or had otherwise acquired the legal character of stolen property, the very foundation of the offence under Section 411 IPC disappears.