SD. SHABUDDINversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1040 : 2025 INSC 999

                             Sd. Shabuddin
                                   v.
                         The State of Telangana
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3605 of 2025)
                               19 August 2025
              [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the judgment passed by the High Court places a
       reverse burden of proof upon the appellant and is thus, legally
       unsustainable; whether the conviction u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly
       receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact
       that both the accused stand acquitted for the offence of theft
       punishable u/s.379 IPC.

                                 Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.411, 379 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114 –
       Conviction u/s.411, when not sustainable – Appellant and co-
       accused were acquitted of the charges u/ss.302, 201 and 379
       IPC however, were convicted u/s.411 IPC on the ground that
       they were found in possession of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/-
       respectively, and were unable to account for their possession
       of such a huge amount of cash – Conviction u/s.411 IPC
       confirmed by High Court – Sustainability:
       Held: Unsustainable – High Court grossly erred by placing
       reverse burden of proof on the accused to account for the cash
       in their possession when in fact it lied on the prosecution to
       prove their case beyond reasonable doubt – It erred in applying
       the presumption u/s.114, Evidence Act to convict the appellant
       for the offence punishable u/s.411 IPC – The illustration u/s.114,
       Evidence Act would only apply where the prosecution establishes
       the foundational fact of the theft of goods and the possession
       thereof by the accused soon after the incident – No evidence on
       record as to the total amount which the deceased was carrying with
       him when the incident took place – In absence of any convincing
       evidence regarding the amount being carried by the deceased, by
       the mere fact of recovery of a cash amount of Rs.25,000/- from


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                               1041

                Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


     the possession of the accused, it cannot be inferred that the said
     amount was stolen goods – The cash so recovered had no special
     or distinct identification characteristics and thus, the same could not
     be linked to amount allegedly stolen from the deceased even if such
     allegation was proved by tangible evidence – Conviction u/s.411
     IPC cannot be based solely on the ground that both the accused
     were unable to account for being in possession of such huge
     amount of cash – Appellant acquitted – Impugned order set aside.
     [Paras 14, 14.2, 16, 17]

     Penal Code, 1860 – ss.411, 379 – Whether the conviction
     u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can
     be sustained in view of the fact that both the accused were
     acquitted for the offence of theft punishable u/s.379 IPC:
     Held: No – Conviction u/s.411 IPC for dishonestly receiving
     stolen property is unsustainable as both the appellant and the
     co-accused were acquitted by the High Court and the Trial Court
     for the offence of theft punishable u/s.379 IPC – Since the very
     beginning, the case of the prosecution was that the co-accused
     committed the homicide of the deceased, stole his belongings,
     including Rs.2,92,629/-, while the deceased was on a business
     trip – The co-accused paid Rs. 30,000/- out of the total money that
     he had stolen from the deceased to the appellant – However, the
     Trial Court rejected this theory of theft, against which no appeal
     was filed – Thus, once the Trial Court had acquitted both the co-
     accused and the appellant u/s.379 IPC, it erred in holding that
     they were liable u/s.411 – To establish culpability u/s.411, 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 – Thus, if
     the courts upon trial hold that the property in question is not a
     stolen property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for
     the offence punishable u/s.411 especially when the whole case
     of the prosecution relates to the events forming part of the same
     transaction. [Paras 15.3-15.5, 16]

     Evidence Act, 1872 – s.102 – When attracted:
     Held: In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on
     the prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations raised by it
     against the accused person are preliminarily satisfied – However, if
     the prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of s.102, the criminal
1042                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    trial initiated against the accused deserves to be dismissed without
    asking the accused to lead any evidence from the side of defence.
    [Para 14.1]

                             Case Law Cited
    Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022] 7 SCR 493 : (2022)
    9 SCC 676 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872.

                             List of Keywords
    Section 411, Penal Code, 1860; Conviction under Section 411,
    Penal Code, 1860 not sustainable; Section 379, Penal Code,
    1860; Theft; Theft of goods; Possession of stolen goods; Soon
    after the incident; Stolen property; Dishonestly receiving stolen
    property; Property in possession not a stolen property; Accused
    acquitted of theft; Reverse burden of proof; Section 114, Evidence
    Act, 1872; Recovery of cash from the possession of the accused;
    Cash recovered; No special or distinct identification characteristics;
    Amount allegedly stolen from the deceased; Inability of the accused
    to account for the cash recovered from possession; Unable to
    account for the cash recovered; Money stolen from the deceased;
    Theory of theft rejected; Initial burden always on prosecution to
    discharge.

                            Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    3605 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2024 of the High Court
    for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRL.A.M.P. No. 439
    of 2010

                        Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Appellant:
    Byrapaneni Suyodhan, B Laxman, Ms. Tatini Basu.
    Advs. for the Respondent:
    Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Yatharth Kansal, M. Srikanth
    Varma.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        1043

                         Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


                         Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                  Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant, takes exception to
       the judgment dated 7th March, 2024, passed by the High Court for
       the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 whereby the criminal appeal2
       preferred by the present appellant and Moulana (accused No. 1)3
       was partly allowed.
3.     The High Court, while partly allowing the appeal against the judgment
       of conviction dated 5th March, 2010, passed by the Principal Sessions
       Court, Warangal4 in Sessions Case No. 229 of 2008, had reduced
       the sentence of imprisonment from three years, as awarded by the
       Trial Court under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 18605, to
       one year.

       BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
4.     The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is narrated hereinbelow:
       4.1. The complainant, namely K. Vikram, cousin brother of
            deceased-M. Narsaiah6, registered an FIR bearing No. 344 of
            2005 with Mills Colony Police Station, District Warangal alleging,
            inter alia, the deceased was in a business of selling paddy to
            the rice mills at Warangal. In this regard, the deceased had
            gone to Warangal on 22nd December, 2005 to collect outstanding
            dues amounting to Rs. 2,92,629/-.
       4.2. Around 07:00 P.M., the deceased’s brother-in-law made a phone
            call to him asking his whereabouts. The deceased informed
            that he has collected the cash and was then headed to Laxmi


1    Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
2    Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
3    For short, “accused-Moulana”.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as “Trial Court”.
5    For short, ‘IPC’.
6    Hereinafter, referred to as “deceased”.
1044                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


              Narsimha Rice Mill, Rampur. After an hour, when the phone call
              was again made by the deceased’s brother-in-law, the person
              who received the call replied that it was a wrong number and
              since then the phone has been switched off.
      4.3. The complainant and his family made efforts to locate the
           deceased and when they remained unsuccessful, the present
           FIR7 came to be registered on 24th December, 2005. The police
           began with their investigation.
      4.4. The investigation culminated in a chargesheet, submitted by
           the police on 16th June, 2007 against accused-Moulana and the
           present appellant. The chargesheet stated that after working
           with accused-Moulana, who was a leading paddy broker, for 3
           years as Gumasta, the deceased had begun his separate paddy
           business. In a very short span, the deceased’s business profits
           skyrocketed and overtook accused-Moulana’s business, who
           on that account began to incur heavy losses in his business.
           Recently, the two were involved in an altercation with respect
           to the price at which the deceased was selling his paddy.
           Thus, on 22nd December, 2005 when the deceased was visiting
           Warangal, accused-Moulana saw an opportunity to do away
           with his business nemesis permanently.
      4.5. On the fateful day, after consuming alcohol together, accused-
           Moulana and the deceased left together for their homes. It
           was there that accused-Moulana murdered the deceased near
           Ursa Hillock area by slitting his throat, thereafter, concealing
           the body in nearby bushes and stealing away his cash, bike
           and phone. He immediately abandoned the place and reached
           Warangal Railway Station and left the deceased’s bike parked
           in the parking area. He boarded a passenger train, disposed
           of the deceased’s cellphone in the bath-room of the said train
           and then de-boarded.
      4.6. On the following day, i.e. on 23rd December, 2005, with the
           assistance of the present appellant, who had agreed to help
           accused-Moulana for a consideration of ₹30,000, the dead body
           was retrieved and wrapped in a polythene sheet. Both started


7   Exhibit P.35.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          1045

                      Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


              their journey towards Khammam with the wrapped dead body.
              Their initial plan was to dispose of the dead body in some canal,
              however, when they reached Appalraopet, they came across
              a burning pyre. Taking advantage of the fact that there was no
              one present there, both the accused threw the dead body on
              the burning pyre to obliterate the final piece of evidence.
      4.7. The next day, i.e. 24th December, 2005, accused-Moulana
           partially deposited the stolen amount to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/-
           in Laxmi Vilas Bank and retained the remaining amount.
      4.8. According to the prosecution, the breakthrough in their
           investigation came when the police secured the presence of
           PW12-M. Khaja Pasha, who disclosed that accused-Moulana
           had approached him and made an extra-judicial confession,
           in his presence admitting that he had murdered the deceased
           and incinerated the dead body in a pyre at the outskirts of
           Appalraopet. The police thus, apprehended both the accused
           persons on 31st August, 2006 at Gudur. Chargesheet was filed
           against them after concluding investigation.
5.    In this regard, the Trial Court on 16th December, 2008 framed charges
      against the accused-Moulana under Sections 302, 201 and 379,
      IPC and against the present appellant under Section 379 and 201
      IPC. As both the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was therefore
      proceeded against them. In order to bring home the charges, the
      prosecution examined 31 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents
      and 3 material objects.
6.    The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5th March, 2010, acquitted both
      the accused persons from the charges for the offences punishable
      under Sections 302, 201 and 379 IPC however, returned a finding
      of guilt qua both the accused persons under Section 411 IPC
      and therefore, sentenced them to undergo 3 years of rigorous
      imprisonment and ordered fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. In default,
      the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for an
      additional period of 9 months.
7.    Accused-Moulana and the appellant assailed the aforesaid order of
      conviction before the High Court via a common appeal8. During the


8    Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2010.
1046                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     pendency of the appeal, on account of death of accused-Moulana,
     his legal representatives were brought on record. The High Court
     vide judgment dated 7th March, 2024, partly-allowed the appeal by
     reducing the sentence of 3 years so awarded by the Trial Court to
     a period of one year.
8.   Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave
     before us laying challenge to the judgment passed by the High Court.

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
9.   Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the
     prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
     property held by the appellant is a stolen property, and belonged to
     the deceased. To bring home the charges under Section 411 IPC,
     the prosecution must establish that the person receiving or retaining
     the stolen property must have knowledge or belief that the same
     is a stolen property. Mere possession of the stolen property is not
     enough, and it must be proved by the prosecution that there was
     knowledge about the property being stolen. Hence, the belief or
     knowledge factor is sine qua non to give a finding of guilt for offence
     punishable under Section 411 IPC.
     9.1. It was further contended that in the present case, the prosecution
          has failed to prove that the appellant had either knowledge
          or belief that the money that he had received from accused-
          Moulana was stolen property. This assertion is further fortified
          by the concurrent acquittal of both of the accused persons under
          Section 379 IPC by the High Court and the Trial Court. As both
          of them were acquitted for the offence of theft, the Courts below
          grossly erred to return a finding that the appellant was guilty for
          dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 411 IPC.
     On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to allow the
     present appeal and set aside the impugned order of conviction.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
    vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions made on behalf
    of the appellant. It was contended that the appellant was offered
    Rs. 30,000/- by the accused-Moulana for disposing of the dead
    body of the deceased. The accused-Moulana offered said sum of
    Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 2,92,629/- which belonged to the deceased.
    In this regard, the appellant has suffered a confessional statement
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1047

                     Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


     on the basis of which recovery was made. The appellant led the
     investigating officer (PW-30) to his house, where he had produced
     Rs. 25,000/-9 in the form of cash. The appellant had also confessed
     that out of Rs. 30,000/- which was his share as agreed with accused-
     Moulana to commit the illegal act of disposing of the dead body of
     deceased, he had already spent an amount of Rs. 5,000/-.
     On these grounds, learned counsel thus, urged to dismiss the appeal
     and uphold the order of conviction as recorded by the High Court.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
    advanced at the bar and have also gone through the material
    available on record.

     ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT:
12. The issues in the present appeal that have fallen for our consideration
    are two-fold: -
     I.      Whether the judgment dated 7th March, 2024, passed by the
             High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the appellant
             and is thus, legally unsustainable?
     II.     Whether the conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly
             receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact
             that both the accused stand acquitted for the offence of theft
             punishable under Section 379 IPC?

     ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. (I):
13. 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.
     13.1. The prosecution initially knit a story that the successful growth
           of deceased’s business formed an enmity between him and
           his erstwhile employer, i.e. accused-Moulana. Thus, when the
           deceased was visiting Warangal on 22nd December, 2005 to


9   Material Object No. 3.
1048                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


                collect his money due from the rice mills in Warangal, accused-
                Moulana saw a perfect opportunity to do away with his old
                employee turned competitor.
      13.2. However, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 5th March,
            2010, 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 in the outskirts
            of Appalraopet and thus, proceeded to acquit accused-Moulana
            from the charge under Section 302 IPC and accused-Moulana
            and the present appellant from the charge under Sections
            201 and 379 IPC.
      13.3. Finally, the Trial Court returned a finding that the fact that
            accused-Moulana and the appellant were found in possession
            of Rs. 2,60,000/-10 and Rs. 25,000/-11 respectively, coupled with
            their inability to account for their possession of such a huge
            amount of cash, thus, liable to be convicted for being guilty
            of the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.
      13.4. In an appeal preferred by accused-Moulana and the present
            appellant, the High Court confirmed the aforesaid finding of
            conviction under Section 411 IPC and held that a mere claim
            by the accused persons that the cash belongs to them is not
            sufficient to prove that the cash so recovered from them is their
            personal cash. The High Court noted that accused-Moulana is
            unable to explain the cash deposited by him in his brother-in-
            law’s account soon after the murder of the deceased.
14. In our considered opinion, 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


10   Material Object No. 1.
11   Material Object No. 3.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             1049

                 Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


     the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. The
     illustration (a) under the said provision reads as below: -
           “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.
           …
           (a)   that a man who is in possession of stolen goods
                 soon, after the theft is either the thief or has received
                 the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can
                 account for his possession.”
     The aforesaid illustration would only apply where the prosecution
     establishes the foundational fact of the theft of goods and the
     possession thereof by the accused soon after the incident. There is
     no evidence on record as to the total amount which the deceased
     was carrying with him when the incident took place. In absence of
     any convincing evidence regarding the amount being carried by
     the deceased, by the mere fact of recovery of a cash amount of
     Rs.25,000/- from the possession of the accused, it cannot be inferred
     that the said amount was stolen goods. Suffice it to say, that the cash
     so recovered had no special or distinct identification characteristics
     and thus, the same could not be linked to amount allegedly stolen
     from the deceased even if such allegation was proved by tangible
     evidence.
     14.1. In a criminal prosecution, the initial burden is always on the
           prosecution to discharge, whereby the allegations raised by
           it against the accused person are preliminarily satisfied. If the
           prosecution is unable to do so, by virtue of Section 102 of
           Evidence Act, the criminal trial initiated against the accused
           deserves to be dismissed without asking the accused to lead
           any evidence from the side of defence.
     14.2. In our view, 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.
1050                                                             [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


      ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. (II):
15. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the appellant
    had received the sum of Rs. 25,000/-12, as recovered from him, from
    accused-Moulana out of the money that was stolen by the latter
    from the deceased, the prosecution was required under law to prove
    that accused-Moulana had committed theft and the appellant had
    knowledge that the said money belonged to the deceased.
      15.1. Initially, the Trial Court, vide order dated 16th December, 2008,
            did frame the charge of theft under Section 379 IPC against
            accused-Moulana and the present appellant. However, both
            the Courts below proceeded to acquit accused-Moulana as
            well as the appellant for the offence of theft punishable under
            Section 379 IPC and instead convicted both the accused under
            Section 411 IPC. In our opinion, this approach adopted by
            both the Courts below is completely erroneous.
      15.2. This Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya
            Pradesh,13 had the occasion to deal with the ingredients of
            Section 411 IPC and noted that: -
                      “14. Section 411 IPC:
                      “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.”
                      The penal section extracted above can be broken
                      down into four segments, namely : Whoever, (i)
                      dishonestly; (ii) receives or retains any stolen
                      property; (iii) knowing; or (iv) 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.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)


12   Material Object No. 3.
13   (2022) 9 SCC 676.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1051

                Sd. Shabuddin v. The State of Telangana


     15.3. Thus, 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. The natural corollary being if the courts upon trial
           reach a conclusion that the property in question is not a stolen
           property, therefore, the accused cannot be charged for the
           offence punishable under Section 411 IPC especially when the
           whole case of the prosecution relates to the events forming
           part of the same transaction.
     15.4. 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/-,
           while the deceased was on a business trip to the distant
           town of Warangal. The accused-Moulana had also paid Rs.
           30,000/- out of the total money that he had stolen from the
           deceased to the present appellant. 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 before the High Court.
     15.5. 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.
           In order to uphold conviction under Section 411 IPC, it is sine
           qua non that the property in the possession of accused is a
           stolen property. If the property is not a stolen property, the
           charge under Section 411 IPC cannot be sustained.
     15.6. Hence, when both the Courts below reached a conclusion that
           there is no commission of theft on the part of the accused
           persons, there arises no question of them committing an offence
           of dishonestly receiving a stolen property punishable under
           Section 411 IPC. In our view, the High Court has committed
           grave error in upholding the order of conviction of the present
           appellant under Section 411 IPC.

     CONCLUSION:
16. For what has been discussed and held hereinabove, the points
    formulated at paragraph (12) are answered as follows: -
1052                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     I.      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.
     II.     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.
17. As a result, 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.
18. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
19. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Appellant is on bail.
    The bail bonds stand discharged.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey