Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3605 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 16117 of 2024)
SD. SHABUDDIN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant, takes
th
exception to the judgment dated 7 March, 2024, passed by the
1
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad whereby the
2
criminal appeal preferred by the present appellant and Moulana
3
(accused No. 1) was partly allowed.
3. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the
th
judgment of conviction dated 5 March, 2010, passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.08.19
16:11:41 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2 Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
3 For short, “accused-Moulana”.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 1 of 15
4
Principal Sessions Court, Warangal in Sessions Case No. 229 of
2008, had reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three
years, as awarded by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the
5
Indian Penal Code, 1860 , to one year.
B RIEF F ACTS OF T HE C ASE:
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is narrated
hereinbelow:
4.1. The complainant, namely K. Vikram, cousin brother of
6
deceased-M. Narsaiah , registered an FIR bearing No. 344 of 2005
with Mills Colony Police Station, District Warangal alleging, inter
alia , the deceased was in a business of selling paddy to the rice
mills at Warangal. In this regard, the deceased had gone to
nd
Warangal on 22 December, 2005 to collect outstanding dues
amounting to Rs. 2,92,629/-.
4.2. Around 07:00 P.M., the deceased’s brother-in-law made a
phone call to him asking his whereabouts. The deceased
informed that he has collected the cash and was then headed to
Laxmi Narsimha Rice Mill, Rampur. After an hour, when the
phone call was again made by the deceased’s brother-in-law, the
person who received the call replied that it was a wrong number
and since then the phone has been switched off.
4.3. The complainant and his family made efforts to locate the
7
deceased and when they remained unsuccessful, the present FIR
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “Trial Court”.
5
For short, ‘IPC’.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”.
7 Exhibit P.35.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 2 of 15
th
came to be registered on 24 December, 2005. The police began
with their investigation.
4.4. The investigation culminated in a chargesheet, submitted by
th
the police on 16 June, 2007 against accused-Moulana and the
present appellant. The chargesheet stated that after working with
accused-Moulana, who was a leading paddy broker, for 3 years as
Gumasta , the deceased had begun his separate paddy business.
In a very short span, the deceased’s business profits skyrocketed
and overtook accused-Moulana’s business, who on that account
began to incur heavy losses in his business. Recently, the two
were involved in an altercation with respect to the price at which
nd
the deceased was selling his paddy. Thus, on 22 December,
2005 when the deceased was visiting Warangal, accused-
Moulana saw an opportunity to do away with his business
nemesis permanently.
4.5. On the fateful day, after consuming alcohol together,
accused-Moulana and the deceased left together for their homes.
It was there that accused-Moulana murdered the deceased near
Ursa Hillock area by slitting his throat, thereafter, concealing the
body in nearby bushes and stealing away his cash, bike and
phone. He immediately abandoned the place and reached
Warangal Railway Station and left the deceased’s bike parked in
the parking area. He boarded a passenger train, disposed of the
deceased’s cellphone in the bath-room of the said train and then
de-boarded.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 3 of 15
rd
4.6. On the following day, i.e. on 23 December, 2005, with the
assistance of the present appellant, who had agreed to help
₹
accused-Moulana for a consideration of 30,000, the dead body
was retrieved and wrapped in a polythene sheet. Both started
their journey towards Khammam with the wrapped dead body.
Their initial plan was to dispose of the dead body in some canal,
however, when they reached Appalraopet, they came across a
burning pyre. Taking advantage of the fact that there was no one
present there, both the accused threw the dead body on the
burning pyre to obliterate the final piece of evidence.
th
4.7. The next day, i.e. 24 December, 2005, accused-Moulana
partially deposited the stolen amount to the tune of Rs.
2,40,000/- in Laxmi Vilas Bank and retained the remaining
amount.
4.8. According to the prosecution, the breakthrough in their
investigation came when the police secured the presence of
PW12-M. Khaja Pasha, who disclosed that accused-Moulana had
approached him and made an extra-judicial confession, in his
presence admitting that he had murdered the deceased and
incinerated the dead body in a pyre at the outskirts of
Appalraopet. The police thus, apprehended both the accused
st
persons on 31 August, 2006 at Gudur. Chargesheet was filed
against them after concluding investigation.
th
5. In this regard, the Trial Court on 16 December, 2008
framed charges against the accused-Moulana under Sections
302, 201 and 379, IPC and against the present appellant under
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 4 of 15
Section 379 and 201 IPC. As both the accused pleaded not guilty,
the trial was therefore proceeded against them. In order to bring
home the charges, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses and
exhibited 40 documents and 3 material objects.
th
6. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5 March, 2010,
acquitted both the accused persons from the charges for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC
however, returned a finding of guilt qua both the accused persons
under Section 411 IPC and therefore, sentenced them to undergo
3 years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered fine to the tune of
Rs. 5,000/-. In default, the accused were ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for an additional period of 9 months.
7. Accused-Moulana and the appellant assailed the aforesaid
8
order of conviction before the High Court via a common appeal .
During the pendency of the appeal, on account of death of
accused-Moulana, his legal representatives were brought on
th
record. The High Court vide judgment dated 7 March, 2024,
partly-allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of 3 years so
awarded by the Trial Court to a period of one year.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special
leave before us laying challenge to the judgment passed by the
High Court.
A RGUMENTS ON B EHALF OF T HE P ARTIES :
8 Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 5 of 15
9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the property held by the appellant is a stolen property, and
belonged to the deceased. To bring home the charges under
Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the person
receiving or retaining the stolen property must have knowledge or
belief that the same is a stolen property. Mere possession of the
stolen property is not enough, and it must be proved by the
prosecution that there was knowledge about the property being
stolen. Hence, the belief or knowledge factor is sine qua non to
give a finding of guilt for offence punishable under Section 411
IPC.
9.1. It was further contended that in the present case, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had either
knowledge or belief that the money that he had received from
accused-Moulana was stolen property. This assertion is further
fortified by the concurrent acquittal of both of the accused
persons under Section 379 IPC by the High Court and the Trial
Court. As both of them were acquitted for the offence of theft, the
Courts below grossly erred to return a finding that the appellant
was guilty for dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section
411 IPC.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to
allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order of
conviction.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 6 of 15
10. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant. It was contended that the appellant was
offered Rs. 30,000/- by the accused-Moulana for disposing of the
dead body of the deceased. The accused-Moulana offered said
sum of Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 2,92,629/- which belonged to the
deceased. In this regard, the appellant has suffered a
confessional statement on the basis of which recovery was made.
The appellant led the investigating officer (PW-30) to his house,
9
where he had produced Rs. 25,000/- in the form of cash. The
appellant had also confessed that out of Rs. 30,000/- which was
his share as agreed with accused-Moulana to commit the illegal
act of disposing of the dead body of deceased, he had already
spent an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.
On these grounds, learned counsel thus, urged to dismiss
the appeal and uphold the order of conviction as recorded by the
High Court.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have also gone through the
material available on record.
SSUES EFORE HIS OURT
I B T C :
12. The issues in the present appeal that have fallen for our
consideration are two-fold: -
9 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 7 of 15
th
I. Whether the judgment dated 7 March, 2024, passed by
the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the
appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable?
II. Whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC for
dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in
view of the fact that both the accused stand acquitted for
the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC?
A NSWER TO Q UESTION N O . ( I ):
13. The present case being one totally based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution therefore, owed a greater duty to prove
each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt so much
so that the circumstances so proved should form a complete
chain of evidence, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
13.1.The prosecution initially knit a story that the successful
growth of deceased’s business formed an enmity between him
and his erstwhile employer, i.e. accused-Moulana. Thus, when
nd
the deceased was visiting Warangal on 22 December, 2005 to
collect his money due from the rice mills in Warangal, accused-
Moulana saw a perfect opportunity to do away with his old
employee turned competitor.
th
13.2.However, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5 March,
2010, found no merit in the allegation that accused-Moulana
committed homicide of the deceased, and returned a finding that
the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused-
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 8 of 15
Moulana by proving complete chain of circumstances that may
point to his guilt. Further, the Trial Court ruled out the
possibility that accused-Moulana had sought the help of the
present appellant to cause the disappearance of the body of the
deceased by throwing it on a burning pyre in the outskirts of
Appalraopet and thus, proceeded to acquit accused-Moulana
from the charge under Section 302 IPC and accused-Moulana
and the present appellant from the charge under Sections 201
and 379 IPC.
13.3.Finally, the Trial Court returned a finding that the fact that
accused-Moulana and the appellant were found in possession of
10 11
Rs. 2,60,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively, coupled with
their inability to account for their possession of such a huge
amount of cash, thus, liable to be convicted for being guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
13.4.In an appeal preferred by accused-Moulana and the present
appellant, the High Court confirmed the aforesaid finding of
conviction under Section 411 IPC and held that a mere claim by
the accused persons that the cash belongs to them is not
sufficient to prove that the cash so recovered from them is their
personal cash. The High Court noted that accused-Moulana is
unable to explain the cash deposited by him in his brother-in-
law’s account soon after the murder of the deceased.
14. In our considered opinion, the High Court has grossly erred
by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for
10 Material Object No. 1.
11 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 9 of 15
the cash in their possession. The High Court clearly erred in
applying the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act
to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
411 IPC. The illustration (a) under the said provision reads as
below: -
“114. Court may presume existence of certain
facts.
…
(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.”
The aforesaid illustration would only apply where the
prosecution establishes the foundational fact of the theft of goods
and the possession thereof by the accused soon after the incident.
There is no evidence on record as to the total amount which the
deceased was carrying with him when the incident took place. In
absence of any convincing evidence regarding the amount being
carried by the deceased, by the mere fact of recovery of a cash
amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the accused, it
cannot be inferred that the said amount was stolen goods. Suffice
it to say, that the cash so recovered had no special or distinct
identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be
linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such
allegation was proved by tangible evidence.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 10 of 15
14.1. In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always
on the prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations
raised by it against the accused person are preliminarily
satisfied. If the prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of
Section 102 of Evidence Act, the criminal trial initiated
against the accused deserves to be dismissed without asking
the accused to lead any evidence from the side of defence.
14.2. In our view, to base a conviction under Section 411
IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable
to account for being in possession of such huge amount of
cash is both incorrect and untenable. Therefore, the
approach adopted by the High Court in upholding the order
of conviction of Trial Court for inability of the accused to
account for the cash so recovered from their possession is
alien to the criminal jurisprudence of our legal system.
A NSWER TO Q UESTION N O . ( II ):
15. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the
12
appellant had received the sum of Rs. 25,000/- , as recovered
from him, from accused-Moulana out of the money that was
stolen by the latter from the deceased, the prosecution was
required under law to prove that accused-Moulana had
committed theft and the appellant had knowledge that the said
money belonged to the deceased.
12 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 11 of 15
th
15.1. Initially, the Trial Court, vide order dated 16
December, 2008, did frame the charge of theft under Section
379 IPC against accused-Moulana and the present appellant.
However, both the Courts below proceeded to acquit accused-
Moulana as well as the appellant for the offence of theft
punishable under Section 379 IPC and instead convicted
both the accused under Section 411 IPC. In our opinion, this
approach adopted by both the Courts below is completely
erroneous.
15.2. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of
13
Madhya Pradesh , had the occasion to deal with the
ingredients of Section 411 IPC and noted that: -
“14. Section 411 IPC:
“ 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property .—Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
The penal section extracted above can be broken down into
four segments, namely : Whoever, ( ) dishonestly; ( ) receives
i ii
or retains any stolen property; ( iii ) knowing; or ( iv ) having
reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both . ”
(emphasis supplied)
15.3. Thus, to establish culpability under Section 411 IPC, it
must be proved that the accused had dishonestly received or
retained the stolen property and in doing so, he either had
knowledge or reason to believe that the same is a stolen
property. The natural corollary being if the courts upon trial
13 (2022) 9 SCC 676.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 12 of 15
reach a conclusion that the property in question is not a
stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for
the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC especially
when the whole case of the prosecution relates to the events
forming part of the same transaction.
15.4. Since the very beginning, the case of the prosecution is
that accused-Moulana committed the homicide of the
deceased, stole his belongings, including the sum of Rs.
2,92,629/-, while the deceased was on a business trip to the
distant town of Warangal. The accused-Moulana had also
paid Rs. 30,000/- out of the total money that he had stolen
from the deceased to the present appellant. During the trial,
the Trial Court has outrightly rejected this theory of theft,
against which no appeal till date has been preferred by the
prosecution or the complainant before the High Court.
15.5. Therefore, once the Trial Court has acquitted both
accused-Moulana and the present appellant under Section
379 IPC, we fail to understand how the Trial Court reached a
conclusion that the accused persons are liable under Section
411 IPC. In order to uphold conviction under Section 411
IPC, it is sine qua non that the property in the possession of
accused is a stolen property. If the property is not a stolen
property, the charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be
sustained.
15.6. Hence, when both the Courts below reached a
conclusion that there is no commission of theft on the part of
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 13 of 15
the accused persons, there arises no question of them
committing an offence of dishonestly receiving a stolen
property punishable under Section 411 IPC. In our view, the
High Court has committed grave error in upholding the order
of conviction of the present appellant under Section 411 IPC.
ONCLUSION
C :
16. For what has been discussed and held hereinabove, the
points formulated at paragraph (12) are answered as follows: -
th
I. The judgment of the High Court dated 7 March, 2024, is
unsustainable as it erroneously places the burden of proof
on the appellant and the co-accused when in fact it lied on
the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt.
II. The conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly
receiving stolen property is unsustainable in view of the fact
that both the accused (including the present appellant)
stand acquitted by the High Court and the Trial Court for
the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC.
th
17. As a result, the judgment under challenge dated 7 March,
2024, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010 is not sustainable
and is hereby set aside.
18. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 14 of 15
19. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is on
bail. The bail bonds stand discharged.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………………………..J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi
August 19, 2025
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 15 of 15
2025 INSC 999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3605 OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 16117 of 2024)
SD. SHABUDDIN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TELANGANA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant, takes
th
exception to the judgment dated 7 March, 2024, passed by the
1
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad whereby the
2
criminal appeal preferred by the present appellant and Moulana
3
(accused No. 1) was partly allowed.
3. The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the
th
judgment of conviction dated 5 March, 2010, passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.08.19
16:11:41 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2 Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
3 For short, “accused-Moulana”.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 1 of 15
4
Principal Sessions Court, Warangal in Sessions Case No. 229 of
2008, had reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three
years, as awarded by the Trial Court under Section 411 of the
5
Indian Penal Code, 1860 , to one year.
B RIEF F ACTS OF T HE C ASE:
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is narrated
hereinbelow:
4.1. The complainant, namely K. Vikram, cousin brother of
6
deceased-M. Narsaiah , registered an FIR bearing No. 344 of 2005
with Mills Colony Police Station, District Warangal alleging, inter
alia , the deceased was in a business of selling paddy to the rice
mills at Warangal. In this regard, the deceased had gone to
nd
Warangal on 22 December, 2005 to collect outstanding dues
amounting to Rs. 2,92,629/-.
4.2. Around 07:00 P.M., the deceased’s brother-in-law made a
phone call to him asking his whereabouts. The deceased
informed that he has collected the cash and was then headed to
Laxmi Narsimha Rice Mill, Rampur. After an hour, when the
phone call was again made by the deceased’s brother-in-law, the
person who received the call replied that it was a wrong number
and since then the phone has been switched off.
4.3. The complainant and his family made efforts to locate the
7
deceased and when they remained unsuccessful, the present FIR
4
Hereinafter, referred to as “Trial Court”.
5
For short, ‘IPC’.
6 Hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”.
7 Exhibit P.35.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 2 of 15
th
came to be registered on 24 December, 2005. The police began
with their investigation.
4.4. The investigation culminated in a chargesheet, submitted by
th
the police on 16 June, 2007 against accused-Moulana and the
present appellant. The chargesheet stated that after working with
accused-Moulana, who was a leading paddy broker, for 3 years as
Gumasta , the deceased had begun his separate paddy business.
In a very short span, the deceased’s business profits skyrocketed
and overtook accused-Moulana’s business, who on that account
began to incur heavy losses in his business. Recently, the two
were involved in an altercation with respect to the price at which
nd
the deceased was selling his paddy. Thus, on 22 December,
2005 when the deceased was visiting Warangal, accused-
Moulana saw an opportunity to do away with his business
nemesis permanently.
4.5. On the fateful day, after consuming alcohol together,
accused-Moulana and the deceased left together for their homes.
It was there that accused-Moulana murdered the deceased near
Ursa Hillock area by slitting his throat, thereafter, concealing the
body in nearby bushes and stealing away his cash, bike and
phone. He immediately abandoned the place and reached
Warangal Railway Station and left the deceased’s bike parked in
the parking area. He boarded a passenger train, disposed of the
deceased’s cellphone in the bath-room of the said train and then
de-boarded.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 3 of 15
rd
4.6. On the following day, i.e. on 23 December, 2005, with the
assistance of the present appellant, who had agreed to help
₹
accused-Moulana for a consideration of 30,000, the dead body
was retrieved and wrapped in a polythene sheet. Both started
their journey towards Khammam with the wrapped dead body.
Their initial plan was to dispose of the dead body in some canal,
however, when they reached Appalraopet, they came across a
burning pyre. Taking advantage of the fact that there was no one
present there, both the accused threw the dead body on the
burning pyre to obliterate the final piece of evidence.
th
4.7. The next day, i.e. 24 December, 2005, accused-Moulana
partially deposited the stolen amount to the tune of Rs.
2,40,000/- in Laxmi Vilas Bank and retained the remaining
amount.
4.8. According to the prosecution, the breakthrough in their
investigation came when the police secured the presence of
PW12-M. Khaja Pasha, who disclosed that accused-Moulana had
approached him and made an extra-judicial confession, in his
presence admitting that he had murdered the deceased and
incinerated the dead body in a pyre at the outskirts of
Appalraopet. The police thus, apprehended both the accused
st
persons on 31 August, 2006 at Gudur. Chargesheet was filed
against them after concluding investigation.
th
5. In this regard, the Trial Court on 16 December, 2008
framed charges against the accused-Moulana under Sections
302, 201 and 379, IPC and against the present appellant under
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 4 of 15
Section 379 and 201 IPC. As both the accused pleaded not guilty,
the trial was therefore proceeded against them. In order to bring
home the charges, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses and
exhibited 40 documents and 3 material objects.
th
6. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5 March, 2010,
acquitted both the accused persons from the charges for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC
however, returned a finding of guilt qua both the accused persons
under Section 411 IPC and therefore, sentenced them to undergo
3 years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered fine to the tune of
Rs. 5,000/-. In default, the accused were ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment for an additional period of 9 months.
7. Accused-Moulana and the appellant assailed the aforesaid
8
order of conviction before the High Court via a common appeal .
During the pendency of the appeal, on account of death of
accused-Moulana, his legal representatives were brought on
th
record. The High Court vide judgment dated 7 March, 2024,
partly-allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence of 3 years so
awarded by the Trial Court to a period of one year.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special
leave before us laying challenge to the judgment passed by the
High Court.
A RGUMENTS ON B EHALF OF T HE P ARTIES :
8 Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 5 of 15
9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the property held by the appellant is a stolen property, and
belonged to the deceased. To bring home the charges under
Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the person
receiving or retaining the stolen property must have knowledge or
belief that the same is a stolen property. Mere possession of the
stolen property is not enough, and it must be proved by the
prosecution that there was knowledge about the property being
stolen. Hence, the belief or knowledge factor is sine qua non to
give a finding of guilt for offence punishable under Section 411
IPC.
9.1. It was further contended that in the present case, the
prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had either
knowledge or belief that the money that he had received from
accused-Moulana was stolen property. This assertion is further
fortified by the concurrent acquittal of both of the accused
persons under Section 379 IPC by the High Court and the Trial
Court. As both of them were acquitted for the offence of theft, the
Courts below grossly erred to return a finding that the appellant
was guilty for dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section
411 IPC.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to
allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order of
conviction.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 6 of 15
10. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant. It was contended that the appellant was
offered Rs. 30,000/- by the accused-Moulana for disposing of the
dead body of the deceased. The accused-Moulana offered said
sum of Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 2,92,629/- which belonged to the
deceased. In this regard, the appellant has suffered a
confessional statement on the basis of which recovery was made.
The appellant led the investigating officer (PW-30) to his house,
9
where he had produced Rs. 25,000/- in the form of cash. The
appellant had also confessed that out of Rs. 30,000/- which was
his share as agreed with accused-Moulana to commit the illegal
act of disposing of the dead body of deceased, he had already
spent an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.
On these grounds, learned counsel thus, urged to dismiss
the appeal and uphold the order of conviction as recorded by the
High Court.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have also gone through the
material available on record.
SSUES EFORE HIS OURT
I B T C :
12. The issues in the present appeal that have fallen for our
consideration are two-fold: -
9 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 7 of 15
th
I. Whether the judgment dated 7 March, 2024, passed by
the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the
appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable?
II. Whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC for
dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in
view of the fact that both the accused stand acquitted for
the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC?
A NSWER TO Q UESTION N O . ( I ):
13. The present case being one totally based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution therefore, owed a greater duty to prove
each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt so much
so that the circumstances so proved should form a complete
chain of evidence, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
13.1.The prosecution initially knit a story that the successful
growth of deceased’s business formed an enmity between him
and his erstwhile employer, i.e. accused-Moulana. Thus, when
nd
the deceased was visiting Warangal on 22 December, 2005 to
collect his money due from the rice mills in Warangal, accused-
Moulana saw a perfect opportunity to do away with his old
employee turned competitor.
th
13.2.However, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5 March,
2010, found no merit in the allegation that accused-Moulana
committed homicide of the deceased, and returned a finding that
the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused-
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 8 of 15
Moulana by proving complete chain of circumstances that may
point to his guilt. Further, the Trial Court ruled out the
possibility that accused-Moulana had sought the help of the
present appellant to cause the disappearance of the body of the
deceased by throwing it on a burning pyre in the outskirts of
Appalraopet and thus, proceeded to acquit accused-Moulana
from the charge under Section 302 IPC and accused-Moulana
and the present appellant from the charge under Sections 201
and 379 IPC.
13.3.Finally, the Trial Court returned a finding that the fact that
accused-Moulana and the appellant were found in possession of
10 11
Rs. 2,60,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively, coupled with
their inability to account for their possession of such a huge
amount of cash, thus, liable to be convicted for being guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
13.4.In an appeal preferred by accused-Moulana and the present
appellant, the High Court confirmed the aforesaid finding of
conviction under Section 411 IPC and held that a mere claim by
the accused persons that the cash belongs to them is not
sufficient to prove that the cash so recovered from them is their
personal cash. The High Court noted that accused-Moulana is
unable to explain the cash deposited by him in his brother-in-
law’s account soon after the murder of the deceased.
14. In our considered opinion, the High Court has grossly erred
by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for
10 Material Object No. 1.
11 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 9 of 15
the cash in their possession. The High Court clearly erred in
applying the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act
to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
411 IPC. The illustration (a) under the said provision reads as
below: -
“114. Court may presume existence of certain
facts.
…
(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.”
The aforesaid illustration would only apply where the
prosecution establishes the foundational fact of the theft of goods
and the possession thereof by the accused soon after the incident.
There is no evidence on record as to the total amount which the
deceased was carrying with him when the incident took place. In
absence of any convincing evidence regarding the amount being
carried by the deceased, by the mere fact of recovery of a cash
amount of Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the accused, it
cannot be inferred that the said amount was stolen goods. Suffice
it to say, that the cash so recovered had no special or distinct
identification characteristics and thus, the same could not be
linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such
allegation was proved by tangible evidence.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 10 of 15
14.1. In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always
on the prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations
raised by it against the accused person are preliminarily
satisfied. If the prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of
Section 102 of Evidence Act, the criminal trial initiated
against the accused deserves to be dismissed without asking
the accused to lead any evidence from the side of defence.
14.2. In our view, to base a conviction under Section 411
IPC solely on the ground that both the accused were unable
to account for being in possession of such huge amount of
cash is both incorrect and untenable. Therefore, the
approach adopted by the High Court in upholding the order
of conviction of Trial Court for inability of the accused to
account for the cash so recovered from their possession is
alien to the criminal jurisprudence of our legal system.
A NSWER TO Q UESTION N O . ( II ):
15. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the
12
appellant had received the sum of Rs. 25,000/- , as recovered
from him, from accused-Moulana out of the money that was
stolen by the latter from the deceased, the prosecution was
required under law to prove that accused-Moulana had
committed theft and the appellant had knowledge that the said
money belonged to the deceased.
12 Material Object No. 3.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 11 of 15
th
15.1. Initially, the Trial Court, vide order dated 16
December, 2008, did frame the charge of theft under Section
379 IPC against accused-Moulana and the present appellant.
However, both the Courts below proceeded to acquit accused-
Moulana as well as the appellant for the offence of theft
punishable under Section 379 IPC and instead convicted
both the accused under Section 411 IPC. In our opinion, this
approach adopted by both the Courts below is completely
erroneous.
15.2. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of
13
Madhya Pradesh , had the occasion to deal with the
ingredients of Section 411 IPC and noted that: -
“14. Section 411 IPC:
“ 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property .—Whoever
dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
The penal section extracted above can be broken down into
four segments, namely : Whoever, ( ) dishonestly; ( ) receives
i ii
or retains any stolen property; ( iii ) knowing; or ( iv ) having
reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both . ”
(emphasis supplied)
15.3. Thus, to establish culpability under Section 411 IPC, it
must be proved that the accused had dishonestly received or
retained the stolen property and in doing so, he either had
knowledge or reason to believe that the same is a stolen
property. The natural corollary being if the courts upon trial
13 (2022) 9 SCC 676.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 12 of 15
reach a conclusion that the property in question is not a
stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for
the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC especially
when the whole case of the prosecution relates to the events
forming part of the same transaction.
15.4. Since the very beginning, the case of the prosecution is
that accused-Moulana committed the homicide of the
deceased, stole his belongings, including the sum of Rs.
2,92,629/-, while the deceased was on a business trip to the
distant town of Warangal. The accused-Moulana had also
paid Rs. 30,000/- out of the total money that he had stolen
from the deceased to the present appellant. During the trial,
the Trial Court has outrightly rejected this theory of theft,
against which no appeal till date has been preferred by the
prosecution or the complainant before the High Court.
15.5. Therefore, once the Trial Court has acquitted both
accused-Moulana and the present appellant under Section
379 IPC, we fail to understand how the Trial Court reached a
conclusion that the accused persons are liable under Section
411 IPC. In order to uphold conviction under Section 411
IPC, it is sine qua non that the property in the possession of
accused is a stolen property. If the property is not a stolen
property, the charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be
sustained.
15.6. Hence, when both the Courts below reached a
conclusion that there is no commission of theft on the part of
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 13 of 15
the accused persons, there arises no question of them
committing an offence of dishonestly receiving a stolen
property punishable under Section 411 IPC. In our view, the
High Court has committed grave error in upholding the order
of conviction of the present appellant under Section 411 IPC.
ONCLUSION
C :
16. For what has been discussed and held hereinabove, the
points formulated at paragraph (12) are answered as follows: -
th
I. The judgment of the High Court dated 7 March, 2024, is
unsustainable as it erroneously places the burden of proof
on the appellant and the co-accused when in fact it lied on
the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubt.
II. The conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly
receiving stolen property is unsustainable in view of the fact
that both the accused (including the present appellant)
stand acquitted by the High Court and the Trial Court for
the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 IPC.
th
17. As a result, the judgment under challenge dated 7 March,
2024, passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010 is not sustainable
and is hereby set aside.
18. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 14 of 15
19. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is on
bail. The bail bonds stand discharged.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………………………..J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi
August 19, 2025
Crl.A. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 16117 of 2024 Page 15 of 15