Accused Can't Claim That His Confessional Statement Be Considered Regarding Some Offences Only & Not For Others: Allahabad HC

The Bench of Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a contention of the appellant-accused that he could not have been convicted under Section 413 IPC based on his confession as the trial Court did not ask for at least two judgments dealing with his conviction under Section 411 IPC.

It may be noted that while Section 411 deals with 'Dishonestly receiving stolen property', Section 413, on the other hand, deals with 'Habitually dealing in stolen property'

The facts in brief

On March 12, 2016, based on the information received from an informant, the police party got to know that the appellant (along with others) was talking about theft and robbery.

On further inquiry, he admitted that they all used to make theft or robbery of passengers traveling in the train and if some member of his gang was caught by the people, he helped them in the name of being in the police department.

All the persons standing there, were arrested by the police and they confessed that they were having Alprazolam powder, stolen motorcycles and stolen mobile phones etc.

Later on, trial court framed charges under Sections 177 (Furnishing false information), 171 (Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent), 419 (Punishment for cheating by personation), 417 (Punishment for cheating), 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and 413 (Habitually dealing in stolen property) I.P.C. against the accused-appellant and he was convicted for all the above offences.

It may be noted that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he confessed his guilt and on the basis of that confession only, the trial court had held him guilty for all the charges framed against him and convicted him.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

Submissions made before the Court

Challenging his conviction under section 413 IPC, it was argued that since Section 413 IPC deals with Habitually dealing in stolen property, it was necessary for the trial Court to asked for at least two judgments of his conviction under Section 411 I.P.C. (Dishonestly receiving stolen property).

For this purpose, he also relied upon the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of Ajay Sethi Vs. State 2017 (4) JCC 2495 wherein it had been held that for being habitual, the accused should have been convicted twice or more than twice under Section 411 I.P.C.

It was also argued that if the appellant had made confession, even then he could not have been held guilty for that offence as there was no evidence on record that the accused was ever convicted for the offence under Sections 411 I.P.C.

Court's observations

The Court, at the outset, observed that there was no need for the trial court to have asked for two judgments in which the appellant had convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. because confession made by the accused, shall be taken as a whole.

In fact, the Court noted, in his 313 CrPC statement, when he was specifically asked as to whether he habitually used to deal in stolen goods, the Appellant did not deny the question and had accepted that trial was held against him on account of commission of offences by him.

Importantly, the offences committed by the appellant which he confessed included offence under Section 413 I.P.C. also.

In this backdrop, the Court observed thus:

"After confession made by the appellant, no other evidence was required to convict him. The confession regarding other offences under Sections 177, 171, 419, 417 and 411 I.P.C. is not challenged by the appellant. Hence, when the conviction is made as a whole regarding any occurrence or set of occurrences, it shall be taken as a whole. It cannot be fragmented into pieces and the accused cannot at a later stage claim that the confessional statement made by him, should be considered regarding some of the offences only."

Lastly, the Court did not agree with the argument of counsel for the appellant that for convicting the accused under Section 413 I.P.C. it is mandatory, particularly after confession, that accused should have already been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. twice or more than twice.

"…because accused appellant has himself made confession before the learned trial court that he was habitual in dealing with the stolen properties. It is not the case of the appellant nor he argued that accused did not make confession with freewill," added the Court while dismissing the appeal.

Case title - Vinod Mali v. State of U.P.

Click here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment