Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.35 seconds)
Adam Molla vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 March, 2026 cites

Shiv Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 September, 2022

The aforesaid illustration would only apply where the prosecution establishes the foundational fact of the theft of goods and the possession thereof by the accused soon after the incident. There is no evidence on record as to the total amount which the deceased was 14 carrying with him when the incident took place. In absence of any convincing evidence regarding the amount being carried by the deceased, by the mere fact of recovery of a cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the possession of the accused, it cannot be inferred that the said amount was stolen goods. Suffice it to say, that the cash so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible evidence. 14.2. In our view, to base a conviction under Section 411 IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable to account for being in possession of such huge amount of cash is both incorrect and untenable. Therefore, the approach adopted by the High Court in upholding the order of conviction of Trial Court for inability of the accused to account for the cash so recovered from their possession is alien to the criminal jurisprudence of our legal system. 15.2. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, had the occasion to deal with the ingredients of Section 411 IPC and noted that:--
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 29 - H Roy - Full Document
1   2 Next