9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Conviction under sections 395 and 397 IPC, Evidence of recovery of stolen goods, Applicability of presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, Sentencing
Conviction under sections 395 and 397 IPC: The judgment pertains to an appeal against the conviction of the appellant under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with five others, committed dacoity in an agricultural field, looting valuables and causing injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant based on evidence of identification and recovery of stolen goods. However, the High Court found the evidence of recovery reliable but deemed the conviction under sections 395 and 397 unjustified. The court referred to the aggravated nature of dacoity and the presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that the recovery made after a significant period does not qualify as "soon after" the theft. The court cited a Supreme Court decision to support the inference that retaining stolen goods after a considerable time would constitute an offense under section 411 IPC, not dacoity. Evidence of recovery of stolen goods: The High Court analyzed the evidence of recovery of stolen goods, specifically three golden beads and two golden vatis, which were found in the appellant's house on his pointing out. One of the public panchas turned hostile, but the court found the testimony of the other pancha and the investigating officer credible. The court noted that the mother of the informant recognized the recovered items as part of the Mangalsutra, supporting the prosecution's case. The court accepted the recovery as reliable evidence. Applicability of presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act: The judgment delves into the applicability of the presumption under section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act concerning possession of stolen goods. While acknowledging the provision's relevance to theft and dacoity cases, the court emphasized that the recovery made after a substantial period cannot trigger the presumption. The court cited a legal precedent to illustrate that delayed recovery does not warrant the presumption of theft, leading to the inference that the appellant knowingly retained stolen goods, thereby committing an offense under section 411 IPC. Sentencing: Regarding sentencing, the High Court considered the appellant's time served as an undertrial and the elapsed time since the incident. The court opted not to send the appellant to jail due to these factors and instead imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 with a default sentence of six months RI. The court modified the appellant's conviction to section 411 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already served. The appellant was directed to pay the fine within three months, failing which he would undergo the default sentence. The court provided detailed instructions on the payment process and the consequences of non-compliance.
|
