Dhruva Vig
The act of stealing is one of the most common of the offences that are committed in our society. Adam Smith propounded the theory of ‘human wants being unlimited’. We must also bear in mind the theory propounded by Sigmund Freud with a biological view that there are two basic instinctive forces governing human life: self-preservation and reproduction.
Hence, the instinctual desire of a human to posses something which he/she does not own by any means necessary, can be considered as an extension of self-preservation.
From a philosophical point of view, Socrates believed that no one knowingly commits an evil action, the evil is turned into good in the mind. The thief convinces himself/herself that he/she holds the right to the object he desires. He needs it more than the other does and thus is rightfully his.
In psychological terms, ‘Stealing’ has a very definitive motivation behind it. It may be caused by jealousy of some person or a thing, or low self-esteem of the thief, or peer-pressure to do so. Social issues like feeling excluded or getting overlooked can also drive a person to resort to stealing. People may steal to prove their independence as well, or to act out against family or friends, or because they do not respect others or themselves.
The act of ‘Stealing’ can be described as an act to take personal property of a person illegally with the intent to keep it unlawfully. It may also be described as the felonious taking and removing of another’s personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; larceny. Broadly, any act or instance of stealing, including larceny, burglary, embezzlement, and false pretences can be associated with the offence of stealing.
The Latin term ‘furtum’ translates to the act of “theft”. The term has been used to define the offense of stealing a movable property. Under Roman law, ‘furtum’ included not only the taking of another’s property, but any handling of the property done with the intent of profiting by it.
Hence, ‘furtum’ was not just a private wrong (delictum) prosecuted by the person suffering the loss. Under Spanish Law, the term ‘hurto’ is used to define “theft or larceny or stealing.” Under Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘stolen property[1]’ may be defined as “Goods acquired by larceny, robbery, or theft.”
The law safeguards its citizens under various laws and statutes against such acts, where the act of stealing can be punished in several forms and manner, depending upon the degree of crime. In India, the Indian Penal Code has provided various provisions for dealing with the offence of ‘stolen property’.
There are a couple of legal maxims that deal with the offence of stealing. Those are:
- Contrectatio rei alienae animo furandi est furtum. – Touching or taking another’s property with an intention of stealing is theft.
- Furtum est contrectatio rei alienae fraudulenta, cum animo furandi, invito illo domino cujus res illa fuerat. – Theft is the fraudulent handling of another’s property, with an intention of stealing, against the will of the proprietor, whose property it had been.
Legal provisions
Under the Indian Penal Code 1860, offences relating to stolen property are covered under “Chapter XVII – Of Offences Against Property”, under the head “Of the Receiving of Stolen Property.” Sections 410 to 414 deal with the offences relating to stolen property. These sections deal with defining what constitutes a stolen property, as well as the various instances where persons holding possession of such property can be punished. These are as follows:
Section 410 – Stolen property
This section talks about the concept of property, and whose possession thereof has been transferred by the illicit means of theft, or by extortion, or by robbery and where such property has been criminally misappropriated, or where a criminal breach of trust has been committed in relation to such property, shall be designated as “stolen property” under this section.
If the said property comes into the possession of the owner who is legally entitled to its possession thereof, then such property ceases to be stolen property.
Section 411 – Dishonestly receiving stolen property
This section talks about the concept of dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property, knowing, or having reason to believe that the said property classifies as stolen property, and where such act shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
This is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which is triable by any Magistrate of competent authority, and is compoundable at the discretion of the owner of the property stolen.
Section 412 – Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity
This section talks about the concept of dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen property, and where possession of such property is known or has reason to be believed that such property has been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or has dishonestly received from any person belonging to a gang of dacoits having the possession of such stolen property, and where such offence 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.
This is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which is triable by a Court of Session of competent authority and is non-compoundable offence.
Section 413 – Habitually dealing in stolen property
This section talks about the concept of habitually receiving or dealing in property, which such person knows or holds the reason to believe that such property is of stolen nature, and where such person shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
This is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which is triable by a Court of Session of competent authority and is a non-compoundable offence as well.
Section 414 – Assisting in concealment of stolen property
This section talks about the concept of voluntary assisting in concealment or disposing of or making away with property, which the person knows or has the reason to believe that such property is stolen, and where such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
This is a cognizable and non-bailable offence, which is triable by any Magistrate of competent authority, and is compoundable at the discretion of the owner of the property stolen.
Illustrations
- ‘A’ cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree to such taking, he has committed theft and is in possession of a stolen property.
- ‘A’ buys a ring belonging to ‘Z’ from a thief, which ‘Z’ used to own. Here, the ring is not in Z’s possession and is therefore considered a stolen property. If A dishonestly receives such property, A commits the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property.
- ‘A’ buys a ring belonging to ‘Z’ from a gang of dacoits, which ‘Z’ used to own. Here, the ring is not in Z’s possession as it was stolen in the commission of a dacoity and is therefore considered a stolen property. If A dishonestly receives such property, A commits the offence of dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.
- ‘A’ runs the business of buying stolen cars from people and knows that such cars are a stolen property. Here, A is aware of such cars being a stolen property and continues to dishonestly receive such property on a habitual basis. A commits the offence of habitually dealing in stolen property.
- A stole a ring from Z and asks B to conceal such ring in his possession, which is not in the possession of Z anymore. B knows the ring is a stolen property. ‘A’, by taking it, commits theft and ‘B’ commits the offence of assisting in concealment of stolen property.
Case laws
- State v. Chotey Lal[2]
Held: When no part of prosecution case is found reliable including the alleged recovery of stolen property at the instance of accused it seems to be on effort by police to involve the accused persons by hook or by crook therefore conviction of co-accused is also liable to be set aside.
- Amar Singh & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh[3]
Held: When articles were received soon after dacoity and proved to have been stolen in dacoity, offence falls under section 412 and not under section 395.
- Pandara Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu[4]
Held: “No material has been brought to the court’s notice to show that any of the acquitted persons were in possession of the stolen idols with the knowledge that the same were stolen, rather the findings of the courts below are to the contrary. There is thus no merit in the contention of the appellants.” Hence, it is incumbent upon parties to prove such possession of the stolen property and failing to do so shall lie the appeal dismissed.
- Shankar Lal Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh[5]
Robbery was committed in a dark night. Identification of accused being doubtful, conviction under Section 392 was held to be not sustainable. However, in view of recovery of stolen articles from the possession of the accused, conviction under Section 411 was upheld by the Court. Having regard to long lapse of time, and, the recovery of articles of ordinary nature led to the sentence getting reduced to the period already undergone by the accused.
- Pramod Bhnudas Soundankar v. State of Maharashtra[6]
Held: Receiving stolen property pertaining to dacoity was discussed in this case. The fundamental ingredients of the offence are both the knowledge of offence of dacoity or reason to believe the same and receiving stolen property pertaining to theft or dacoity as well. In this case, assailants collectively took away gold ornaments and number of silver chips.
Ten accused were allegedly held responsible for dacoity where one of them disclosed during investigation that he had stolen four silver chips (weighing 1 kg each) from place of occurrence, and had sold the same to the appellant, who is a jeweller. These four stolen silver chips stolen were recovered from shop of appellant and proceedings were initiated against him for dishonestly having received stolen property, knowing (or having reason to believe) that it was stolen property.
However, it was not proved that appellant was aware or had reason to believe that silver chips presented to him by the thieves were by commission of a dacoity. Hence, conviction of appellant was modified to that under Section 411, and in the facts and circumstances of case, sentence of punishment inflicted on appellant was reduced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.
- Ramesh Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.[7]
Held: “To bring the guilt at home under S.413 IPC, it is to be proved that the accused receives and deals in the property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property.
However, if the accused is found in possession of the property which he has reason to believe, is a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained, and even the accused failed to account for such possession, or to act to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, he is convicted under the said offence.”
- Ajendranath v. State of M.P.[8]
Held: “Section 414 IPC makes it an offence for a person to assist voluntarily in stealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property.
It is not necessary for a person to be convicted under Section 414 IPC that another person must be traced out and convicted of an offence of committing theft. The prosecution has simply to establish that the property recovered is stolen property and that the appellant provided help in its concealment and disposal.”
Conclusion
The law has provided a variety of provisions to protect its citizens from crimes dealing with stolen property. These include the offences of robbery, theft, dacoity, and criminal misappropriation of property as well. Any person who engages in the dishonest act of obtaining stolen property is said to have committed the offence of receiving stolen property.
However, there must be a dishonest intention, as well as the knowledge or reason to believe that the property being received is a stolen property, to establish the guilt (mens rea) of such person. Thus, it is the duty of the courts to deal with the factual question of the knowledge and intention of the accused, to meet the ends of justice more effectively and judiciously.
- Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Ed. Pg. 1555 ↑
- State v. Chotey Lal, 1999 Cr LJ 3411 (Del) : ILR 1999 1 Del ↑
- Amar Singh & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 214 : AIR 1982 SC 129: (1982) Cr LJ 610 ↑
- Pandara Nadar v. State of T.N., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 458 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 1069 ↑
- Shankar Lal Yadav v. State of M.P., 1994 SCC (Cri) 1409 ↑
- Pramod Bhnudas Soundankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 1 SCC 635 ↑
- Ramesh Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1993 SCC OnLine Bom 145 : (1993) 3 Bom CR 138 : 1993 Cri LJ 2743 ↑
- Ajendranath v. State of M.P., (1964) 3 SCR 289 : AIR 1964 SC 170 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 129 ↑