Page 1

“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1960_ OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6174 of 2012)

Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar …. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

O R D E R

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Six  persons  wearing  black  clothes,  entered  the  house  of  

Rameshchandra Sawarmal Bagdiaya, situated at Akola Road, Hingoli, on  

the night intervening 17th and 18th July,.2009, at about 1 am, after breaking  

open  the  main  gate.   At  the  time  of  the  break  in,  Rameshchandra  

Sawarmal Bagdiaya and his wife Kirandevi were at the residence.  Having  

threatened  Rameshchandra  Sawarmal  Bagdiaya  and  his  wife,  the  

assailants  demanded  keys  to  an  “almirah”  (storage  cabinet)  in  the  

premises.  Rameshchandra Sawarmal Bagdiaya informed them, that the  

keys were in the drawer of a table in their room.  Having recovered the  

keys  from  the  drawer,  the  intruders  opened  the  “almirah”.   From  the  

“almirah”,  they took  away gold  and silver  ornaments  besides  cash.   In  

addition, they took three gold finger-rings and a gold chain from the person  

of  Rameshchandra  Sawarmal  Bagdiaya,  and  a  gold  “mangalsutra”  

(wedding chain) and gold bangles from the person of Kirandevi.

1

Page 2

3. From the statement made by Rameshchandra Sawarmal Bagdiaya,  

it  came out,  that the assailants collectively took away three gold finger-

rings, one “mangalsutra”, one gold locket, two gold bangles, two ear-tops,  

one gold bar weighing three tolas (30 grams), one ladies finger-ring, two  

“patlyas”  (thick  bangles),  a  number  of  silver  chips  weighing  1 kilogram  

each, 150 silver coins and Rs.1,93,000/- cash.

4. In the process of solving the crime, Vishwanath Gavali was the first  

to be arrested by the investigating officer.  Vishwanath Gavali, disclosed  

the  names  of  some  others,  involved  in  the  incident.   Thereafter,  in  

November, 2009, three accused Hanuman Kale, Ganesh Kale and Kathalu  

alias Sigret were arrested.  In January of the following year, Khetrya was  

also apprehended.  On information furnished by him, Roshan alias Dhonya  

and Kiran,  were  arrested  in  February,  2010.   These arrests  led to  the  

disclosure  of  the  identity  of  the  owner  of  the  car  used  in  the  crime.  

Thereupon Shaikh Javed, the car owner was arrested.  Shivaji Kale was  

the last to be arrested from amongst the intruders.

5. Even though Shivaji Kale (accused no. 8) had disclosed the name of  

Sanjay alias Kaliya as one of their associates in the crime, he could not be  

arrested,  as he was absconding.   He was,  however,  arrested  after  the  

submission of the chargesheet, whereupon a supplementary chargesheet  

was filed implicating Sanjay alias Kaliya.

6. The  aforesaid  ten  accused  were  allegedly  responsible  for  the  

dacoity.  One of them, Shivaji Kale (accused no. 8) disclosed, during the  

course of  investigation,  that  he had stolen four silver chips (weighing 1  

2

Page 3

kilogram  each)  from  the  residence  of  Rameshchandra  Sawarmal  

Bagdiaya,  and had sold the same to Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar,  a  

jeweller.   The four silver chips stolen by the accused Shivaji  Kale were  

recovered  from  the  shop  of  Pramod  Bhanudas  Soundankar-appellant.  

Pramod  Bhanudas  Soundankar-appellant  was  proceeded  against  (as  

accused no.  11)  for  dishonestly  having received stolen property  (under  

Sections 411 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred  

to as “the IPC”), knowing  (or having reason to believe) that it was stolen..

7. The  instant  appeal  has  been  filed  by  the  aforesaid  Pramod  

Bhanudas  Soundankar-appellant.   During  the  course  of  hearing,  the  

solitary contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the  

appellant was, that the Trial Court, as also the High Court, had seriously  

erred in holding the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar guilty, under  

Section 412 IPC.  It  was the contention of  the learned counsel  for  the  

appellant, that the evidence produced by the prosecution during the trial of  

the  case,  could  at  best,  result  in  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  under  

Section 411 IPC.  In the aforesaid view of the matter, the sole question  

which arises for our consideration, in the present appeal is confined to the  

issue,  whether  the  Courts  below were  justified  in  holding  the appellant  

Pramod  Bhanudas  Soundankar  guilty  of  having  committed  the  offence  

punishable under Section 412 IPC and not  Section 411 thereof.

8. The Trial Court, while dealing with the case of the appellant Pramod  

Bhanudas Soundankar, recorded the following observations:-

3

Page 4

“92. So  far  as  evidence  against  accused  no.  11  Pramod  Soundankar is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution  that  he  was  involved  in  the  dacoity.   However,  muddemal  articles  are  seized  as  per  the  memorandum  statement  of  accused no. 8 Shivaji Kale from the shop of accused no. 11.  On reaching to shop, he has handed over those articles to the  police.  Accordingly, Panchnama is made.  There is nothing  brought  on  record  in  the  evidence  of  PW-20 P.I.  Rauf,  an  Investigating Officer that he is having any interest as against  this accused to falsely involved him in this crime.  Therefore,  merely  because  the  panch  witness  on  memorandum  and  seizure panchnamas are not supporting, the evidence of PW  20 P.I. Rauf, I.O.  On memorandum and seizure panchanama  and  PW-4  Rameshchandra  Bagdiaya,  complainant  as  to  identity  of  the  muddemal  property  I  hold  that  the  evidence  brought on record is sufficient to hold that the property, which  is  seized  from  accused  no.  11  Pramod  Bhanudas  Soundankar,  is  the  property  transferred  from  dacoity  and  involvement of accused no. 8 Shivaji  Kale in the offence of  dacoity and the nature of property itself is such that the favour  silver chips having weight of 1 kg each from which it can be  inferred that this accused having knowledge about the same  has purchased it and retained it.  Therefore, he is also liable  for  punishment  under  Sections  412  and  411  of  the  Indian  Penal Code.”

9. During  the  course  of  the  appellate  proceedings  before  the  High  

Court,  the  evidence  with  reference  to  the  appellant  Pramod  Bhanudas  

Soundankar was discussed as under:-

“29. As regards the accused no. 11, it  is to be noted that he is  jeweller  by  occupation.   Accused  no.  8  Shivaji  Kale  was  arrested on 2.2.2010 from Wapi, Gujarat.   According to the  prosecution, the said accused made a statement that he has  sold four silver chips to the present appellant/accused.  Those  silver chips, according to the PW-20 P.I.  Shaikh Abdul Rauf,  were recovered from the present appellant.  Panch witness to  the  memorandum  of  statement  as  well  as  the  recovery  panchnama, namely, PW-2 Nagorao and PW-3 Gajanan, both  of  them  have  turned  hostile,  though  employees  of  the  complainant.

30. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the straightforward  testimony of the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Inspector, who  has given the chronological account of the events.

4

Page 5

31. It was alternatively submitted on behalf of the accused, that  even if it is held that the present accused have received the  property from accused no. 8 Shivaji, yet it cannot be said that  he has knowledge that the property was a stolen property.  It  may,  however,  be  noted  that  this  appellant-accused  is  the  jeweler by occupation and he has received four silver chips  from an ordinary person.  In the circumstances, this very fact  shows  that  the  present  appellant  had  knowledge  that  the  property  must  not  have  been  a  normal  property.   In  the  circumstances, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in  this regard also cannot be faulted with.”

10. It  was  the  vehement  contention  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant,  that  accused  nos.  1  to  10  were  all  agricultural  labourers.  

Keeping that in mind, when four silver chips were presented for sale by  

Shivaji  Kale  to  the  appellant  Pramod  Bhanudas  Soundankar,  it  was  

inevitable  for  him  to  appreciate,  that  the  said  silver  chips  weighing  1  

kilogram each could only have been stolen property. Such quantity of silver  

produced by an agricultural labour for sale was per se sufficient reason to  

believe,  that  the  same did  not  belong  to  the  presenter.   This  by  itself  

according to the learned counsel for the appellant though sufficient for the  

offence  under  Section  411,  is  not   enough  for  establishing  guilt  under  

Section 412 IPC.  It was submitted that from the evidence produced by the  

prosecution,  it  was  not  possible  to  infer,  that  Pramod  Bhanudas  

Soundarkar  (the  appellant  herein),  had  known  that  Shivaji  Kala  had  

acquired the silver chips from a dacoity,  or that he had knowledge that  

Shivaji Kale belonged to a gang of dacoits.  In the absence of such proof, it  

was  submitted,  that  the  offence  under  Section  412  IPC  could  not  be  

deemed to have been made out..

5

Page 6

11. In order to appreciate the submission advanced at the hands of the  

learned counsel  for  the  appellant,  it  is  necessary  to  extract  hereunder,  

Sections 411 and 412 IPC.  The aforesaid provisions are accordingly set  

out below:-

“411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property –  

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property,  

knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen  

property,  shall  be  punished  with  imprisonment  of  either  

description for a term which may extend to three years, or with  

fine, or with both.

412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission  of a dacoity -  

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property,  

the possession whereof he knows or has reason to believe to  

have  been  transferred  by  the  commission  of  dacoity,  or  

dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has  

reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a gang of  

dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to  

have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment for life,  

or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to  

ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12. Having  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  facts  and  

circumstances  in  the  present  case,  we  are  of  the  view,  that  the  

fundamental ingredient, that the appellant had received the goods knowing  

(or having reason to believe) them to be stolen, stood fully established.  

We say so because, it is not a matter of dispute that Shivaji Kale (accused  

no. 8) was an agricultural labourer.  For an agricultural labourer, to present  

four silver chips, weighing 1 kilogram each, at the shop of a jeweller, would  

6

Page 7

clearly result in a grave suspicion that the same did not belong to him.  For  

a labourer, it  would be unthinkable to own 4 kilograms of silver.  In the  

background of the aforesaid factual  position,  that when the appellant,  a  

jeweller, received 4 kilograms of silver from an agricultural labourer, it was  

obvious to him (the appellant), that the same did not belong to Shivaji Kale  

(accused no.8). We are satisfied, that the appellant had sufficient cause to  

entertain a reasonable belief, that the same was stolen property.  There  

can therefore be no doubt,  that the Trial  Court,  as also the High Court,  

were  fully  justified  in  holding  that  the  appellant  Pramod  Bhanudas  

Soundankar  had  purchased  four  silver  chips  produced  by  Shivaji  Kale  

(accused no. 8) believing, that the same were stolen articles.  Having so  

concluded,  it  is  clear,  that  the  most  fundamental  and  foundational  

ingredient  of  Sections  411  and  412  IPC stood  established  against  the  

appellant.

13. According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  for  the  

satisfaction of the ingredients expressed in Section 412 IPC, the accused  

could be held to be guilty only, if it could be further established, that the  

stolen property received by the appellant, was known to him, as having  

been  procured  through,  the   commission  of  a  dacoity.   According  to  

learned counsel, consideration at the hands of the Trial Court, as also, the  

High  Court,  with  reference  to  the  appellant  herein  (which  have  been  

extracted  in  paragraphs  7  and  8,  respectively)  does  not  establish,  the  

aforesaid ingredient of Section 412 IPC.  As such it was submitted, that the  

7

Page 8

prosecution had remained unsuccessful in establishing all the ingredients  

of the crime under Section 412 IPC.

14.     The  ingredient  of  Section  412  IPC,  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  

paragraph, has an alternative.  Even if the alternative can be established,  

the accused  would be guilty of having committed the crime expressed in  

Section 412 IPC.  It is apparent from a plain reading of Section 412 IPC,  

that a person receiving stolen goods, would be guilty of  the offence under  

Section 412 IPC, if it can further be shown, that the recipient of the goods  

knew  (or  had  reason  to  believe),  that  the  person  offering  the  goods,  

belonged to a gang of  dacoits.   It  was the vehement  contention of  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  that  the  instant  involvement  of  the  

appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar is his first involvement in such a  

case, inasmuch as, he has never faced a criminal  trial  earlier,  and has  

never  been  convicted  for   any  criminal  involvement  prior  to  his  instant  

conviction.    According  to  learned  counsel,  the  prosecution  having  not  

shown his previous relationship with any of the other 10 accused, prior to  

the incident under reference, there was no question of any presumption,  

that the appellant herein had known (or had reason to believe), that the  

offerer of the silver chips belonged to a gang of dacoits.   

15.    Having perused the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court as also the  

High Court with reference to the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar,  

it is not possible for us to conclude, that either of the Courts below had  

recorded any finding in respect  of the other essential  ingredients of  the  

offence  under  Section  412  IPC.   The  evidence  produced  by  the  

8

Page 9

prosecution, that the appellant Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar had known  

(or had reason to believe), that four silver chips (weighing 1 kiolgram each)  

was stolen property, would be sufficient only to establish his guilt under  

Section 411 IPC.   A perusal of the impugned judgments, does not reveal a  

finding  recorded  by  either  the  Trial  Court  or  the  High  Court,  that  the  

appellant was aware, that the silver chips presented to him by Shivaji Kale  

(accused n o.8) were procured by the commission of a dacoity.  Even the  

alternative conclusion, namely, that the appellant knew (or had reason to  

believe) that Shivaji Kale (accused no.8) belonged to a gang of dacoits,  

was not recorded by the courts below.  Even during the course of hearing  

before us, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, could not draw  

our attention to any evidence on the basis whereof, either of the aforesaid  

alternative ingredients of Section 412 IPC could be demonstrated.  It  is  

therefore clear, that the guilt of the appellant under Section 412 IPC cannot  

be stated to have been substantiated in the facts and circumstances of the  

present case.

16. For  the reasons  recorded hereinabove,  we are satisfied,  that  the  

Trial  Court,  as  also the High Court,  were not  justified in convicting  the  

appellant under Section 412 IPC.  We therefore, set aside the conviction of  

the appellant under Section 412 IPC.

17. The sentence imposed on the appellant herein, was based on the  

fact that he had been found guilty of offence under Section 412 IPC.  Our  

determination,  however exculpates the appellant  from having committed  

the offence under Section 412 IPC.  We, however, maintain the conviction  

9

Page 10

of the appellant, under Section 411 IPC.  The sentence of imprisonment,  

contemplated  for  the  offence  under  Section  411  IPC,  can  extend  upto  

three years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied  

that  the  ends  of  justice  would  be  met,  if  the  sentence  of  punishment  

inflicted on the appellant is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment and  

fine of Rs.1000/-.   In case of default,  in payment of fine he shall  suffer  

simple imprisonment for one month.  Ordered accordingly.

Partly allowed, as above.

……………………………….J. (B.S. CHAUHAN)

……………………………….J. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

New Delhi; November 30, 2012

1