Sardharam @ Khublu vs State Of M.P.

This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 17.11.2007 passed by Sessions Judge Bastar, Session Division Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in

Criminal Case No. 53/2007, 54/2007, 55/2007 and 56/2007, wherein the said Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

20.09.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur in Criminal Case No. 51/2006, wherein the revisioner was convicted for offence

punishable under Section 411 of the IPC, 1860 for dishonestly receiving a pair of golden bangles (kangan), a pair of tops having reason to believe the

same to be stolen property which is removed from the possession of one Alakhnanda between 02.01.2006 to 12.01.2006 at Dharampura, Jagdalpur

(C.G.)

A report was lodged at Police Station Jagdalpur by one Alakhnanda that golden necklace, golden bangles (kangan), golden tops and golden rings

were stolen from her house. On discovery statement of co-accused Lalit Thakur, Naresh Soni and Revisioner, golden tops, golden bangles (kangan)

and golden chain were recovered.

From the record of the trial Court, it is not established that the identification parade was conducted properly by the authorities and the complainant

identified her articles. The revisioner is convicted under Section 411 of the IPC, for dishonestly receiving golden bangles (kangan), golden tops

knowing or having reason to believe that the same is stolen from possession of Alakhnanda. But for the discovery statement of the revisioner, there is

nothing on record to connect the revisioner that he received the said articles from a person who has stolen the articles or who has reason to believe

that same is stolen property.

The link is missing that the revisioner received the property from any other person. It is also not established by the evidence that the revisioner

received the said articles by way of wrongful gain or by causing wrongful loss to other.

For commission of offence under Section 411 of the IPC, the prosecution is under obligation to prove that article received by causing wrongful loss

to other and wrongful gain to the persons concerned.

In the present case, the only evidence led by the prosecution is regarding seizure of the article and that is not sufficient to hold that it was obtained

by wrongful gain. The revisioner has denied the factum of seizure and he is not claiming over the said article. The articles are not proved to be

removed from the possession of Alakhnanda in absence of reliable identification which is lacking.

In view of the above, the findings of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court are not sustainable under the law. The judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by both the Courts below is hereby set aside. The revisioner is acquitted of the charges under Section 411 of the IPC.

Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed.