Supreme Court | Conviction Under Section 411 IPC Unsustainable Without Proof of Theft | High Court of Telangana Judgment Set Aside
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the conviction of an accused under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for dishonestly receiving stolen property was unsustainable in law. The Court directed that the judgment of the High Court of Telangana dated 7 March 2024 be set aside and the accused-appellant be acquitted of all charges. The Bench further ordered that the bail bonds furnished by the appellant stand discharged. The Court categorically recorded that the conviction by the courts below had been based on erroneous application of law and that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence.
The matter originated from an incident dated 22 December 2005, when the deceased, engaged in the business of selling paddy to rice mills in Warangal, had gone to collect dues amounting to Rs. 2,92,629. After informing his brother-in-law of collecting the cash and heading towards a rice mill, he became untraceable. An FIR was registered on 24 December 2005 at Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal. The investigation led to a chargesheet against two accused, one of whom was the appellant. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, a former employee of accused-Moulana, had surpassed him in the paddy business, creating enmity. On 22 December 2005, after consuming alcohol together, Moulana allegedly murdered the deceased by slitting his throat, concealed the body in bushes, and stole his cash, bike, and phone. On the following day, Moulana, with the assistance of the appellant, allegedly retrieved the body, wrapped it, and disposed of it on a burning pyre at Appalraopet.
The police claimed a breakthrough when a witness disclosed an extra-judicial confession by Moulana admitting to the murder and burning of the body. Both accused were arrested on 31 August 2006, and charges were framed on 16 December 2008. Moulana was charged under Sections 302, 201, and 379 IPC, while the appellant was charged under Sections 379 and 201 IPC. The trial commenced with the prosecution examining 31 witnesses and producing 40 documents.
On 5 March 2010, the Trial Court acquitted both accused of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 379 IPC but convicted them under Section 411 IPC. They were sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000 each. Both accused appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, Moulana passed away and his legal heirs were substituted. On 7 March 2024, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence from three years to one year, while upholding the conviction under Section 411 IPC. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
The appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that the property recovered was stolen property belonging to the deceased, and that the accused had knowledge of the same. It was contended that mere possession of money was insufficient to establish guilt under Section 411 IPC, particularly as both accused had been acquitted of theft under Section 379 IPC. The respondent-State contended that the appellant had been given Rs. 30,000 by Moulana to dispose of the body and that recovery of Rs. 25,000 from the appellant’s house pursuant to his confession established culpability.
The Supreme Court observed: “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.”
It further recorded: “The Trial Court 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-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.”
On the application of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Bench noted: “The High Court has grossly erred by placing reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for 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 Court added that there was no evidence to establish the exact amount carried by the deceased, and the recovered cash had no distinguishing features to link it to the deceased.
The Court 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. 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.”
The Bench also held that acquittal under Section 379 IPC precluded conviction under Section 411 IPC: “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/-. 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. 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.”
The Court cited precedent in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 9 SCC 676, noting: “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.” It concluded that absent proof of theft, the charge under Section 411 could not be sustained.
The Supreme Court categorically directed: “The judgment of the High Court dated 7th 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.”
It further ordered: “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.”
Accordingly, the Bench directed: “The judgment under challenge dated 7th 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. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is on bail. The bail bonds stand discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Advocate; Mr. B. Laxman, Advocate; Ms. Tatini Basu, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Kumar Shashank, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Advocate; Ms. Devina Sehgal, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Advocate; Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Advocate
Case Title: SD. Shabuddin v. State of Telangana
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 999
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3605 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 16117 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
