Landlord’s son jailed for one year over stolen property charges
A local court has sentenced Alok Kant, the son of a landlord, to one year of rigorous imprisonment after convicting him under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on the convict.
However, Kant was acquitted of charges under Sections 452 (house trespass), 454 (lurking house trespass) and 380 (theft) of the IPC after the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence.
The case against Kant was registered following a complaint filed by his tenant, Amit Sharma, on 27 January 2017. Sharma, a resident of a house in Sector 37 A, here, since October 2016, noticed cash missing from his almirah in the bedroom on 17 January, 2017. To catch the thief, Sharma decided to install hidden cameras in his home.
On 27 January, 2017, while at work, Sharma received notifications from his hidden cameras and recorded videos that showed Kant taking items from his bedroom almirah. Upon returning home, Sharma immediately reported the incident to the police. During the investigation, Kant was arrested and CCTV footage and a CD of the footage were collected as evidence.
After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in court under Sections 380, 452, 454 and 411 of the IPC. The court framed charges against Kant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed he had been falsely implicated. The public prosecutor, however, argued the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
After hearing both sides, the court noted while Sharma had discovered the stolen items, he did not catch Kant in the act of house trespass or theft. As such, the court found the prosecution had failed to prove the charges of lurking house trespass and theft. Furthermore, the court stated the CD containing CCTV footage was not legally admissible as evidence.
Nevertheless, the court concluded Kant could not explain the source of the recovered jewellery and cash and this failure was sufficient to conclude he had knowingly received or retained stolen property. Consequently, Kant was convicted under Section 411 of the IPC; however, he was acquitted of the remaining charges under Sections 452, 454 and 380.
