Supreme Court Acquits Accused, Holds Conviction Under S.411 IPC Unsustainable Where Theft Not Established

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by Sd. Shabuddin challenging the Telangana High Court’s March 7, 2024 judgment which had partly allowed an appeal and reduced a three‑year sentence under Section 411 IPC to one year. The appeal raised whether the High Court had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof onto the accused and whether a conviction for dishonestly receiving stolen property could stand when both accused had been acquitted of theft under Section 379 IPC.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court held that the prosecution bore the onus to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the property in the accused’s possession was stolen and that the recipient had “knowledge or reason to believe” it was stolen. The Court found that the High Court had erred by applying Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act to shift the burden to the accused where the foundational fact of theft had not been established. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further noted that the Illustration to Section 114 applied only where the prosecution proved the foundational fact of theft and possession soon after the theft, and that mere recovery of unidentifiable cash could not be equated with proof of stolen property.

Background

The prosecution case arose after M. Narsaiah went missing on December 22, 2005 while collecting dues of Rs. 2,92,629 from rice mills at Warangal. An FIR was registered on December 24, 2005. Police charged a Moulana (accused No.1) with murder, concealment and theft, and the present appellant with receiving/disposing of the body and with receiving stolen property. The Trial Court (Principal Sessions Court, Warangal) acquitted both accused of murder, concealment and theft but convicted them under Section 411 IPC on account of large cash recoveries — convicting them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines. The High Court partly allowed an appeal, reducing the sentence under Section 411 to one year while affirming conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that mere possession of cash without proof that it was stolen, and without proof of knowledge or belief, could not sustain a conviction under Section 411. The State relied on a purported extra‑judicial confession and recovery of cash from the appellant’s possession, and argued that the appellant had received Rs.30,000 as his share. The Supreme Court addressed two issues: whether the High Court placed a reverse burden on the accused and whether a Section 411 conviction could survive when both Courts had acquitted the accused of theft under Section 379. Observing that the prosecution had failed to prove theft and identify the cash as the deceased’s money, and reiterating that the prosecution carried the initial burden under Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the Court concluded that conviction under Section 411 was unsustainable where theft was not proved. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant, and discharged bail bonds. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 3605 OF 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NO. 16117 of 2024) Case Title: Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment