Supreme Court Set Aside Conviction Under Sections 120B and 411 IPC — Ordered Return of Seized Gold Bars to Appellant. Acquittal of Co-Accused Upheld — Failure to Prove Seized Gold Was Stolen Property — Reasonable Doubt Favored Accused

Constitution of India (COI) — Article 21 — Right to Fair Trial — Burden of Proof on Prosecution — Chain of Circumstances Must Be Complete.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 120B — Criminal Conspiracy — Failure to Establish Direct Link — Acquittal Upheld.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 411 — Receiving Stolen Property — Failure to Prove Identity of Seized Property as Stolen — Conviction Set Aside.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Burden of Proof — Failure of Prosecution to Prove Primary Facts — Accused Not Obliged to Prove Lawful Acquisition.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313 — Statement of Accused — Failure to Explain Lawful Acquisition Does Not Substitute Prosecution’s Burden.

Held:

Identity of seized gold bars as stolen property not established beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution failed to prove that gold bars were acquired through fraudulent demand drafts. Appellant’s failure to explain lawful acquisition does not compensate for prosecution’s failure to prove its case. Conviction under Sections 120B and 411 IPC set aside. Ordered return of 205 seized gold bars to the appellant.

Criminal Conspiracy — Receiving Stolen Property — Reasonable Doubt — Burden of Proof — Gold Bars — Forged Documents — Telegraphic Transfer — Seized Property — Acquittal — Conviction Set Aside.

Criminal Appeals filed challenging the conviction and sentence under Sections 120B and 411 IPC and seeking return of seized gold bars.

Accused No. 3 (Appellant) sought acquittal from conviction under IPC.

Appellant requested return of 205 seized gold bars.

Appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment affirming his conviction despite failure to establish that the seized gold was stolen property.

Trial Court — Convicted Accused No. 3 under Sections 120B and 411 IPC — Ordered return of gold bars to him.

High Court — Acquitted Co-Accused — Upheld conviction of Accused No. 3 — Quashed order returning gold bars — Directed confiscation by State.

Whether the identity of the seized gold bars as stolen property was established beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the accused’s failure to explain lawful acquisition of gold can substitute the prosecution’s burden of proof.

Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete to sustain conviction under Sections 120B and 411 IPC.

Appellant’s Counsel:

Argued lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the fraud.

Contended incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

Claimed gold bars were legally acquired and failure to prove them as stolen property.

CBI’s Counsel:

Asserted independent evidence linking the accused to the fraudulent transactions.

Emphasized accused’s failure to explain lawful acquisition.

Burden of Proof: Prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Circumstantial Evidence: Chain of evidence must be complete and exclude every hypothesis other than guilt.

Section 106, Evidence Act: Special knowledge of accused does not arise unless prosecution establishes primary facts.

Doctrine of Reasonable Doubt: Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.

Issue of Consideration: HIRALAL BABULAL SONI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.