After 20-Year Case, P&H HC Cuts Stolen-Brass Convicts’ 3-Year Terms To Time Served If They Pay An Extra ₹10,000 Each Within 2 Months

The appellants were convicted under Section 411 IPC after brass articles allegedly stolen from Sigma Industries were recovered from them.

The Trial Court had found the charge under Section 395 IPC unproved, but relied on recovery evidence to convict the appellants under Section 411 IPC and sentenced each to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000.

The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence; during the appeal, counsel submitted that they had served approximately two years and sought reduction of the substantive sentence, while maintaining the conviction. The High Court noted the lengthy proceedings and the appellants’ clean record.

Section 411 IPC criminalises dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, with knowledge or reason to believe that it is stolen; the Trial Court applied that provision after finding the Section 395 IPC charge unproved and relying on the recovery evidence.

In Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, the Supreme Court recognised that, while maintaining a conviction, a court may reduce the substantive sentence in view of factors including the passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating circumstances.

The judgment also treated prolonged proceedings, clean antecedents, and the non-heinous nature of the offence as relevant considerations in moulding sentence.

The High Court recounted that the Trial Court had relied on the recovery of the brass articles and the testimony of the police witnesses and complainant, notwithstanding the failure to prove dacoity.

However, the appeal was partly allowed on sentence: the Court considered the appellants’ time in custody, the protracted proceedings, their clean record, and the mitigating approach recognised in Israfil.

The Court expressly stated that it was acting “without opining on the merits of the case”.

The appellants’ bail and surety bonds were discharged; failure to deposit the amount would revive the Trial Court’s custodial sentence, requiring the appellants to serve the remaining term.