Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 411 ipc..acquittal in State vs Amar Singh on 12 May, 2010Matching Fragments
12. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the accused persons for their acquittal from offence under Section 411 IPC and contended that they are liable to be convicted under Section 395 IPC also as there was sufficient evidence available on record to connect them with the crime. He referred to identification parade of accused Narain (Ex.P3), identification parade of remaining five accused persons (Ex.P2) and contended that accused Narain was rightly identified by P.W.1 Mangtu Ram in whose house the dacoity was committed, remaining five accused persons were rightly identified by P.W.2 Om Devi and P.W.4 Kanta the wife and daughter of P.W.1 Mangtu Ram. There was sufficient light to recognise the figures of the dacoits by P.W.1 Mangtu Ram, P.W.2 Om Devi and P.W.4 Kanta, the accused persons furnished information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and in pursuance thereof recovery of articles, as per list of articles (Ex.P1) was made. He contended that learned trial court committed illegality in recording a finding that evidence relating to identification of the accused is illegal and the same is liable to be reversed by this Court. He, therefore, contended that there are compelling and substantial reasons for reversing the finding of the trial court and convicting the accused persons of the charge under Section 395 IPC. So far as offence under Section 411 IPC is concerned, he fairly and frankly admitted that prima facie the offence under Section 411 IPC is not made out for the simple reason that the recovery of articles(ornaments) was made from the so called dacoits and they were not the purchasers of the stolen items and they were not having possession of the articles knowing that they were stolen property and further that no charge of this offence was framed against them.
24. So far as conviction of accused persons under section 411 IPC is concerned, we may refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shabad Pulla Reddy & ors. vs. State of A.P. (supra), wherein the accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 397 IPC and they were convicted under Section 411 IPC without framing charge under Section 411 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, but in absence of any charge framed under Section 411 IPC and on their acquittal of the charge under Section 396 IPC, no order of conviction can be recorded against them.
30. The recovery of articles was not made from the exclusive possession of the accused persons. Therefore, the alleged recovery is doubtful since it cannot be said to be made from a place to which accused alone had exclusive access as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. vs. Ghudan(supra).
31. It is also relevant to mention that the charge against accused persons was under Section 395 IPC, which was not found to be proved. As per ingredients of Section 411 IPC whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property shall be punished for rigorous imprisonment of either description, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. There was no charge against the accused that they dishonestly received or retained any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property. Therefore, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shabad Pulla Reddy vs. State of A.P.(supra) that in absence of any charge framed under Section 411 IPC and on their acquittal of the charge under Section 395 IPC, no order of conviction can be recorded against them. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned trial court committed illegality in convicting the accused persons under Section 411 IPC.