The Supreme Court in the case Shiv Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh observed that for conviction under Section 411 IPC, it must be established that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property.
In the present case, 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 accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction was confirmed by the High Court.
Before the Apex Court, the counsel, Advocate Lav Kumar Agrawal, appearing 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 from the looted truck were stolen. However, it was contended that unless the knowledge of the accused on the nature of the articles sold by them is established, his conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. cannot be sustained in law. The counsel, Advocate Gopal Jha, appearing for the State submitted that there are adequate material and evidence on record which establishes the guilt of the accused.
The court while referring to Section 411 IPC and Trimbak vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 39, it was noticed by the bench that in order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the property stolen was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got the possession of the property, and (3) that the accused had the knowledge that the property was stolen property.
The bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and the Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that when we apply the legal proposition as propounded to the present circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that on the side of the prosecution it has failed to establish that the appellant had the knowledge that articles seized from his possession are stolen goods. Against the appellant, the essential element was not established to bring home the charge under Section 411 of the IPC against him.
Adding to it, the court stated 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 that on the side of the prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. Thus, 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. It was observed that the essential ingredient of mens Rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 of IPC. On this aspect, the Prosecution’s evidence and as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, “you speak an infinite deal of nothing.”