This article is written by Tanishka Bajaj from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies.

MERELY RECOVERY OF STOLEN PROPERTY FROM ACCUSED

CANNOT MAKE THEM OFFENDER

STOLEN PROPERTY

A property whose possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, or robbery and which
has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been
committed is considered a "stolen property" under Section 410, regardless of whether the
transfer, misappropriation, or breach of trust took place within or outside India. It goes on to
say that if the property is afterwards taken into the custody of someone who is legally
authorised to have it, it is no longer stolen.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

Property Must Be Stolen

Property whose possession is transferred by the five ways given in Section 410 is considered
a stolen property. Those are:

1. By theft;
2. By extortion;
3. By robbery;
4. By criminal misappropriation; and
5. By criminal breach of trust.

Ownerless Property

It is based on the notion of res nullius, which refers to a property that does not have an owner
or has been abandoned by its current owner. A property with no owner cannot be stolen,
hence receiving it will not result in the receipt of stolen goods. For example, seizing a bull
that has been abandoned by its owner and belongs to no one is not the same as receiving
stolen goods.

Within or Outside India

According to Section 410, it makes no difference whether the transfer, criminal
misappropriation, or breach of trust occurred within or outside India. To qualify as "stolen
property," such property can be transferred within or outside of India.

Dishonestly Receiving or Retaining Property

Section 411 imposes liability not just for dishonest "receipt," but also for dishonest
"retention." The difference between the two is that in the first, the property was obtained
dishonestly, but it was not necessarily retained dishonestly. However, in the latter case, the
person's attitude shifts from "honest" to "dishonest," and he keeps the property dishonestly
with himself.

The following are the elements that must be established in order to show the accused's guilt:

 The accused was in possession of the stolen goods.

 That the property was in the possession of someone else before the accused obtained
possession of it.
 That the accused knew or had cause to suspect the property had been stolen.
 That the accused intended to deprive the owner of his or her property by keeping it or
selling it to someone else.

PROPERTY RECOVERED FROM ACCUSED

The Supreme Court today ruled that simply recovering stolen material from the accused's
residence does not constitute them criminals, and that this cannot be taken as conclusive
proof that the items were stolen by them. The Supreme Court declared today that finding
stolen property from an accused's home does not make them criminals, and that this cannot
be used as solid evidence that the things were stolen by them.

Advocate Minakshi Vij, the petitioner's counsel, testified before the Court that the petitioner
was not even mentioned in the FIR filed. The deceased son filed a police report against an
unknown assailant. Later, on the basis of suspicion that the convict Raja Ram, together with
another convict named Chhinda Ram, were prowling around the deceased's residence a day or
two before the incident, they were convicted and sentenced to the same punishment.

The Supreme Court heard both sides and concluded that it is quite simple to place anything in
anyone's home. Things and recoveries can be planted. We are willing to release the petitioner
since there is no additional evidence on record that can prove the convicted person's guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the prosecution, the deceased was brought to the hospital dead and the hospital
reported this to the police. Nobody takes the names of the accused during the investigation.
The cause of death of the dead was throttling, according to the post mortem report presented
by the doctor, and there were throttling marks on the deceased's body. The prosecution claims
that the deceased's personal ornaments were also missing from his person. Her phone had
also vanished.

APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT

Both guilty parties filed an appeal in the High Court against the trial court's ruling, which
condemned him to life in jail and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under section 460 of the Indian Penal
Code, with a two-year penalty if the money was not paid. He was also sentenced to three
years of solitary confinement and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 411 of the IPC, with the
possibility of further solitary confinement for a term of six months if the money is not paid.

The High Court maintained the trial court's ruling, citing the prosecution's claim that police
recovered two mobile phones, one sim card, and some decorations from the house of Chhinda
Ram during the inquiry, and found no reason to interfere with the trial court's decision.

Raja Ram, who was aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, addressed the Supreme Court
Legal Service Authority and filed this SLP with the Supreme Court.

After reviewing all of the facts submitted by both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that
based on the evidence presented against them, it is very improper to conclude that they have
unquestionably committed the aforementioned offence. The Accused has the benefit of the
doubt. So, Raja Ram was released because he had petitioned the court, but we have no
information on Chhinda Ram's position.

As a result, the Supreme Court has asked Mr. Vishal Mahajan, who appeared on behalf of the
state, to investigate the status of another offender, Chhinda Ram, to see if he is still in
detention or has been released. “Because they are impoverished persons with insufficient
resources to approach the Court, they are not liable to be rotted in jail,” the Court stated.