Section 411 IPC : Prosecution Must Establish That Accused Had Knowledge That Property Was Stolen Property: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, for conviction under Section 411 IPC, it must be established that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.

The prosecution case against Shiv Kumar and co-accused Shatrughan Prasad was that they had received the articles looted from the truck knowing fully well that those are stolen property. The Trial Court convicted the accused and the High Court confirmed the conviction.

Before the Apex Court, Advocate Lav Kumar Agrawal, who appeared for the accused-appellant,  contended that that the essential ingredients of Section 411 IPC offence are not at all made out as the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the accused had knowledge that the seized articles were stolen from the looted truck. Unless the knowledge of the accused on the nature of the articles sold by them is established, his conviction under Section 411 of the IPC cannot be sustained in law, it was contended. Advocate Gopal Jha, who appeared for the State submitted that there are adequate material and evidence on record which establishes the guilt of the accused.

Referring to Section 411 IPC and Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39, the bench noted that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy observed:

"When we apply the legal proposition as propounded to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods. This essential element was not established against the appellant to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against him" 

The court added that the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. While allowing the appeal, the court observed:

"The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens Rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC. The Prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, "you speak an infinite deal of nothing.""

Case details

Shiv Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746 | CrA 1503 OF 2022 | 7 September 2022 | Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 411 - In order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property - Referred to Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39. (Para 21-22)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment