The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that a conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be sustained once the accused has been acquitted of the primary charge of theft under Section 379 IPC. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside a judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana, acquitting the appellant, SD. Shabuddin, and held that the prosecution must first establish that a property is stolen before a person can be convicted for receiving it.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered on December 24, 2005, following the disappearance of M. Narsaiah, a paddy broker. The prosecution’s case was that Narsaiah was murdered by his former employer and business rival, an individual referred to as Moulana (accused No. 1), on December 22, 2005. It was alleged that after murdering Narsaiah, Moulana stole cash amounting to Rs. 2,92,629, a bike, and a phone from him.
The police chargesheet, filed on June 16, 2007, claimed that Moulana, with the assistance of the appellant SD. Shabuddin, disposed of the deceased’s body on a burning pyre for a payment of Rs. 30,000. Following an investigation, which included an alleged extra-judicial confession by Moulana, both individuals were apprehended on August 31, 2006.
The Principal Sessions Court, Warangal, framed charges against Moulana for murder (Section 302 IPC), causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC), and theft (Section 379 IPC). The appellant, Shabuddin, was charged under Sections 379 and 201 IPC.
On March 5, 2010, the Trial Court acquitted both accused of the charges of murder, causing disappearance of evidence, and theft. However, it convicted both under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was based on the recovery of Rs. 2,60,000 from Moulana and Rs. 25,000 from the appellant, which they could not satisfactorily account for.
The accused appealed to the High Court for the State of Telangana. While the appeal was pending, Moulana passed away. On March 7, 2024, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 411 IPC but reducing the sentence to one year. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the money recovered was stolen property belonging to the deceased. It was contended that to secure a conviction under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen. The counsel emphasized that the concurrent acquittal of the accused for the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC by both the Trial Court and the High Court made the conviction under Section 411 IPC legally untenable.
Conversely, the counsel for the State of Telangana argued that the appellant had received Rs. 30,000 from Moulana to help dispose of the deceased’s body. A confessional statement led to the recovery of Rs. 25,000 from the appellant’s house. The State maintained that this money was part of the amount stolen from the deceased, justifying the conviction.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court formulated two primary issues for consideration: whether the High Court had erroneously placed a reverse burden of proof on the appellant, and whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC could be sustained after an acquittal under Section 379 IPC.
Answering the first issue, the Court held that the High Court had “grossly erred by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for the cash in their possession.” The judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath stated, “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.” The Court observed that the cash recovered had no special identifying features to link it to the amount allegedly stolen from the deceased. It reiterated that in a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the prosecution to prove its allegations.
On the second issue, the Court found the approach of the lower courts to be “completely erroneous.” It noted that an essential ingredient for a conviction under Section 411 IPC is that the property in question must be “stolen property.” The judgment stated, “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.”
The Court concluded that since the prosecution’s theory of theft had been rejected by the lower courts, and no appeal was filed against that acquittal, the charge of receiving stolen property could not be sustained. “If the property is not a stolen property, the charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained,” the bench affirmed.
Concluding that the High Court committed a “grave error,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated March 7, 2024. The appellant, SD. Shabuddin, was acquitted of all charges.
