IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/19TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 615 of 2003 ( ) ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.198/1998 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK NO.1) PALAKKAD APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- SHAFEEQUE, S/O.SHAHULHAMEED, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKETHALA, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.PRINCE.K.ELIAS SRI.R.RAJA RAJA VARMA SMT.M.R.VALSA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Criminal Appeal No.615 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 8th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence passed against appellant for offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code ('the IPC', for short) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant was charge sheeted by police as second accused along with first accused, who was a juvenile, alleging offences under Sections 449, 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first accused, being a juvenile, was tried by the juvenile court and he was acquitted. The appellant alone stood trial before Additional Sessions Court. 3. According to prosecution, PW1 is the son of the deceased. They were residing in the same house during the relevant period. PW1 used to go for work in the morning and come back only in the night. On 24.4.1997, as usual, PW1 left for work and came back by about 8.15 p.m. On reaching home, he found his mother's dead body lying in the kitchen with bleeding injuries. The gold bangles worn by deceased and other Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 2 ornaments which belonged to the deceased and kept in the Almirah were found missing. 4. A first information statement was given by PW1 and a crime was registered and after investigation, it was found that at about 6.15 p.m., on 24.4.1997, appellant along with juvenile accused committed murder of deceased Mehabooba using a grinding stone and thereafter, robbed her gold ornaments and left the house. The juvenile allegedly caught hold of the victim while appellant inflicted severe injuries on her, by using the weapon, is the allegation. 5. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW18 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 and MO1 to MO19 series were marked. The accused while questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code submitted that 10 days prior to his production before learned Magistrate, police came to Pollachi along with his uncle and took him into custody. Four days he was kept in Puthunagaram Police Station and thereafter, he was taken to Pollachi for examination of his injury. He produced certain receipt to the police from Pollachi. He was kept in the office of Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 3 the Circle Inspector in Kuzhalmandam Police Station, for 5 to 6 days. The co-accused and appellant were at logger heads since appellant had beaten up the former when he had teased his sister. This happened one month prior to the date of commission of murder. 6. The trial court, after considering the evidence in detail found thus, “In these circumstances, even though prosecution has succeeded in establishing that MO5 belonged to the victim and that it was recovered from the house of the accused as per the information furnished by the accused, he cannot be convicted for the offence of murder or robbery”. Thus, appellant was acquitted of offences under Sections 449, 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. According to trial court, accused had not offered any explanation, how he happened to possess MO5 gold bangle belonging to the victim and that there is ample evidence to convict him under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code for dishonestly receiving the stolen property. 7. Heard both sides. Perused records. Admittedly, appellant was convicted only for offence under Section 411 IPC Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 4 on the finding that there is evidence for dishonestly receiving the stolen property. But records in this case does not reveal that prosecution made any such allegation against appellant. The prosecution has no case that appellant had dishonestly received any stolen property knowing it to be stolen, from any person. In the absence of allegations to disclose offence under Section 411 IPC, conviction under the said section cannot be sustained. 8. It is also interesting to note that there is not only any allegations to attract ingredients of Section 411 IPC, but there is no evidence also to establish the said offence. A person can be convicted for an offence, only if there are allegations to constitute such offence and proof for all the ingredients of the said offence. In the absence of allegations or evidence on record to constitute an offence under Section 411 IPC and the ingredients thereof and particularly, in the absence of any charge under Section 411 IPC, conviction entered against appellant for offence under Section 411 cannot be sustained legally. 9. This is all the more so, since the definite case of the prosecution is that appellant is the thief himself and he himself Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 5 had stolen MO5. Prosecution has no case that he received stolen property. There is a lot of difference between ingredients of Section 411 of IPC and the ingredients of theft falling under Section 378 IPC. Section 411 makes a person liable for the said offence, if he dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property. 10. Appellant is convicted under Section 411 IPC not on the ground that he retained stolen property but the definite finding is that he “received” stolen property. Such a case is not there, even for prosecution. Therefore, conviction entered on the finding that appellant “received” stolen property is unsustainable, in the absence of any allegation or evidence to prove such a fact. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that a presumption is available under Section 114(a) of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act')that court may presume that a person who is in possession of stolen goods, soon after the theft, is either thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. It was pointed out that trial court was Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 6 also drawing presumption under Section 114(a) of the Act to hold that appellant had received stolen articles. It is in evidence that appellant was in possession of stolen article (MO5) and it was recovered from his possession after two months of date of incident. Hence, appellant can be presumed to be the person who received the stolen articles, knowing it to be stolen, especially since, he could not account for his possession, it is strongly argued. 12. Before going into the details of the evidence on the question whether appellant can be held to be in possession of the stolen property, it may be assumed that appellant, for arguments' sake is proved to be in possession of MO5, I am of opinion that the court ought not to have drawn any presumption that he received stolen article etc., under Section 114(a) of the Act. Section 114(a) of the Act reads as follows : 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. -- The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume-- Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 7 (a) That a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession; 13. A reading of Section 114(a) of the Act shows that the court “may” draw a presumption in respect of two facts : (1) that a person is the thief or (2) that he received the goods knowing them to be stolen. Either of such facts can be presumed only if a person is found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft and if he is unable to account for such possession. 14. By mere proof of the fact that a person was in possession of stolen article, the court cannot jump to the conclusion that such person received stolen article, knowing it to be stolen etc. The court may draw a presumption with the aid of Section 114(a) that a person received the stolen articles. The presumption under Section 114(a) can be drawn by the prosecution to establish the two facts referred to in Section 114(a) by seeking the court to draw presumption in respect of the said two facts. Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 8 15. In the absence of any allegation or evidence, the court cannot draw a presumption from vacuum. If any such presumption is drawn in the absence of allegation, that will be on surmises and guess and without any materials on record. Therefore, drawing of presumption under Section 114(a) in this case was legally wrong, to hold that appellant “received” the stolen property knowing them to be stolen etc. 16. The prosecution claimed that it proved possession of the stolen article with the appellant. The circumstances sought to be used against the appellant are (1) the statement made by the accused, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; (2) the conduct of the accused in pointing out the place whether the article is kept. On going through the evidence in this case, I find that the statement made by appellant which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not proved in this case. A reading of Section 27 shows that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 9 confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 17. The fact which is relevant under Section 27 as an information received from an accused by the police officer may be proved by deposing such fact. A reading of the evidence of PW18, the Investigating Officer shows that the statement made by appellant to him, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not deposed to by him. There is nothing in his evidence to show that appellant made any statement that he had concealed any article or kept any article in the place from where the seizure was effected. 18. Therefore, this is a case where the statement, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been proved. A mere marking of a portion of a statement, which is incorporated in a mahazar will not prove the information, which is relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence regarding the information given by the accused to the Investigating Officer. It is needless to say that an information given by accused to the police officer can be proved only by Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 10 direct evidence in the light of Section 60 of the Evidence Act. But, this has not been done and hence, there is no admissible evidence relating to the statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Act. 19. Regarding the allegation that the article, MO5 was shown by accused to the police officer, even if it is accepted as a whole will not constitute any incriminating evidence against him. The only allegation is that he shows the place where the article was kept. Such conduct even if admitted under Section 8 of the Evidence Act will only prove that he knew that such article was kept there. It cannot be taken as an incriminating piece of evidence to establish possession of such article by him. This is particularly so since the evidence of PW18 itself shows that the house from where the article was seized was occupied by several persons. 20. PW18 admitted in cross examination that in the house of appellant, his parents, sister, brothers etc. are residing. Therefore, the exclusive possession of the article seized under Ext.P5 mahazar cannot be attributed to appellant. Since Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 11 possession is not proved, accused is not bound to explain the possession. It is only if possession is established, that a presumption under Section 114(a) may be drawn, unless accused fails to account for the possession. For this reason also, the findings entered by the trial court that appellant was in possession of the stolen property and that he failed to account for it and hence, he has received stolen article, MO5 etc. cannot be sustained. 21. This is a case where there is no incriminating evidence against appellant to convict him either for theft or for receipt of stolen articles. The appellant can be presumed to be the thief provided, it is proved that he was, soon after the theft, in possession of stolen articles. Having failed to establish the statement under Section 27 of the Act and also exclusive possession of the stolen article, he cannot be held to be the thief or the person, who has received the stolen articles. In the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant cannot be sustained. Hence, the following order is passed :- Crl. Appeal No.615 of 2003 12 (i) The appellant is found not guilty and he is acquitted of offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. (ii) The appellant is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. This appeal is allowed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs (true copy)