Possession of multiple stolen items and extensive criminal history establish habitual dealing under Section 413 IPC.

The Appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 411/413/414 of the IPC following the theft of a ‘Huawei Y7 Prima 2018’ mobile phone from a commuter on the Delhi Metro on 14.02.2020

Surveillance traced the device to PW-1, who claimed she purchased it from the Appellant but returned it due to the lack of a bill

On 06.12.2020, a police raid at the Appellant's residence resulted in the recovery of the complainant’s phone from his person and seven additional mobile phones from his premises

Three of these phones were linked to other active FIRs

The Appellant, a "Bad Character" (BC) with 24 prior involvements and 9 previous convictions, challenged the Trial Court's judgment dated 01.04.2025 and the sentencing order dated 08.04.2025, alleging false implication and a lack of independent witnesses

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant was in dishonest possession of stolen property and habitually dealt in the same under Sections 411, 413, and 414 of the IPC

Whether the lack of independent witnesses and CCTV footage vitiates the recovery and subsequent conviction

The Court applied Section 411 of the IPC regarding the dishonest receipt of stolen property

It further invoked Section 413 of the IPC, which mandates enhanced punishment for habitually dealing in stolen property, and Section 414 of the IPC for assisting in the concealment or disposal of such property

The Court relied on provincial police records (History Sheets) to establish "habitual" conduct as required for Section 413

The procedural framework was governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, specifically Sections 415(2) and 528 regarding the maintainability of the appeal

The Court rejected the Appellant’s defense of false implication, noting that the testimony of the police raiding party was consistent and corroborated by the MHC(M) register entries

The court found a "link" in the testimony of PW-1, whose initial possession of the phone led the police to the Appellant

Although the Appellant argued that no independent witnesses were joined despite the incident occurring in a crowded area, the Court held that the recovery of the complainant's phone from his person, followed by seven other phones from his residence, created an "unbroken chain of evidence"

Furthermore, the Appellant's criminal history—comprising 24 cases and 9 convictions for similar offences—was deemed sufficient to satisfy the "habitual" requirement of Section 413 IPC

The Court dismissed the plea of malice, noting the Appellant was a BC of a different police station than the one that arrested him

It affirmed the sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) for Section 411, four years RI for Section 413, and one year RI for Section 414, along with respective fines

The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the Appellant was not only in possession of stolen goods but was a habitual offender in the trade of stolen electronics

The appeal and all pending applications were dismissed